Sense of Smell Tied To Quantum Physics? 169
SpaceAdmiral writes "A controversial theory that proposes that our sense of smell is based not on the shape of the molecules that enter our nose but on their vibrations was given a boost recently when University College London researchers determined that the quantum physics involved makes sense. The theory, proposed in the mid-1990s by biophysicist Luca Turin, suggests that electron tunneling initiates the smell signal being sent to the brain. It could explain why similarly shaped molecules can have very different smells, and molecules with very different structures can smell similar." Turin has now formed a company to design odorants using his theory, and claims an advantage over the competition of two orders of magnitude in rate of discovery. The article concludes, "At the very least, he is putting his money where his nose is."
Raised eyebrows... (Score:5, Informative)
I am not saying that they should not do it, or that they are absolutely wrong, as it is possibly interesting. Rather all I am saying is my eyebrows are raised at their claims.
Re:Been rooting for this guy! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Raised eyebrows... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Quantum Chemistry (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Raised eyebrows... (Score:3, Informative)
The notion that things with similar structures having different smells - well, things with different structures often have different chemistries. Often a slight change in structure has significant effect on shape, size, polarity, electronegativity, etc, and these things can have enormous impacts on the ability of an odorant to fit correctly with a G-coupled protein receptor, which are the proteins responsible for olfaction.
The notion that things with different structures smelling the same is irrelevant - it's been shown that a similar *perception* can be caused by a very different combination of actual receptor activations. The conclusion there, not surprisingly, is that perception owes more to the backend processing done in the nasal epithelium and the brain *after* the signals are sent downstream from the receptors.
I'm not saying it plays no role at all, but it's danged questionable. The only evidence at all is the isotopic effect, but there may be other alternative effects going on, including something as mundane as the difference in vapor pressure. The olfactory sensors I worked on could distinguish H20 fromD20, and they most certainly did NOT work on a principle of electronic tunnelling. Sometimes when people hear hoofbeats, they assume camels and zebras.
Re:Raised eyebrows... (Score:5, Informative)
As to the rest of the comment, I'll raise my eyebrows at it. I'm thoroughly skeptical that tunneling would be involved in smell though, but it would be amazing if it were. We'll find out soon enough I'm sure.
Re:Penrose and Quantum Consciousness (Score:2, Informative)
Please excuse my undergraduate hand-waving.
Re:Quantum Chemistry (Score:2, Informative)
You keep repeating that things like photons, electrons and the like are "merely models". I have to take issue with this, as they happen to be effective models.
I would *love* to see how you would *begin* to explain how light and matter interact at a *fundamental* level, without using the concept of electrons and photons.
These guys are not cranks - the (free, as in beer) preprint [arxiv.org] seems to be a pretty typical quantum transport paper, albeit with a slightly "sexed up" angle.
Models are good, if they work.
Re:Raised eyebrows... (Score:4, Informative)
A PSYCHOPHYSICAL TEST OF THE VIBRATION THEORY OF OLFACTION
Keller A., Vosshall L.B. Laboratory of Neurogenetics and Behavior,
Rockefeller University, New York, NY
At present no satisfactory theory exists to explain why a given
molecule has a particular smell. A recent book about the physiologist
Luca Turin has generated new interest in the theory that the smell of a
molecule is determined by its intramolecular vibrations rather than by
its shape. We present the first psychophysical experiments in humans
that test key predictions of this theory. The results suggest that
molecular vibrations alone cannot explain the perceived smell of a
chemical. Specifically, we have found that: (i) in a component
identification task no vanilla odor character was detected in the mixture
of benzaldehyde and guaiacol (ii) odor similarity ratings did not reveal
that even and odd numbered aldehydes form two odor classes and (iii)
naive subjects who could easily discriminate the smell of two molecules
that differ in shape but not in molecular vibration failed to discriminate
two molecules with similar shape but different molecular vibrations in
three different experimental paradigms (similarity rating, duo-trio test,
triangle test). Taken together our findings are consistent with the idea
that the smell of a molecule is determined by its shape but we found no
evidence that the smell of a molecule is influenced by its vibrational
properties.
They subsequently published their findings in Nature Neuroscience.
Keller A, Vosshall LB. A psychophysical test of the vibration theory of olfaction. Nat Neurosci. 2004 Apr;7(4):337-8.
At present, no satisfactory theory exists to explain how a given molecule results in the perception of a particular smell. One theory is that olfactory sensory neurons detect intramolecular vibrations of the odorous molecule. We used psychophysical methods in humans to test this vibration theory of olfaction and found no evidence to support it.
The short version is that the data do not support Luca Turin's speculation.
Re:Been rooting for this guy! (Score:2, Informative)
The Emperor of Scent: A True Story of Perfume and Obsession by Chandler Burr
While not a technical book, it does cover the mass-spectrometer-in-your-nose thing at some level. It's a good read, as it covers the guy, his idea, the fairly radical nature of the idea, and it's fairly small effect thus far (up to the point the book was written).
ls
What about Axel and Buck theory? (Score:3, Informative)
Richard Axel and Linda Buck received their Nobel Prize in 2004 for Physiology or Medicine for "for their discoveries of odorant receptors and the organization of the olfactory system". Note that this is not *only* for the discovery of the receptors, but also for the *way they work*. There are hundreds of receptors in mammals (almost 1,000 in mice, about 330 in humans) that have different selectivities for different odorant molecules and act combinatorially, that is, that the signal perceived by the brain is the result of the combination of receptors activated by the odorant. Given the large number of receptors, and that any number can be activated by an odorant, the variety of smells is huge, and on the other hand the promiscuity of the receptors allows for a chance of 2 dissimilar molecules having the same smell...
Some literature I suggest for someone interested:
- Nobel Prize illustrated presentation: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laure
(see also the Nobel Lectures therein)
- Unpredictability of smell: Sell, C. S. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2006, 45, 6254-6261.
I really think that the system of smell is already quite strongly explained by this theory, that also follows the classical binding+activation of receptors that drives traditional biochemistry and drug design.
I'm still surprised that some theoretical chemist/physicist didn't do QM calculations to prove the tunneling, and publish it in a leading peer-reviewed journal, if the theory is so sound...