6 ms·
Computational biochem student here. Unfortunately we do not have the technological prowess to replace parts of our body as they age. Researchers are working on
by possibilistic 16y ago
Computational biochem student here. Unfortunately we do not have the technological prowess to replace parts of our body as they age. Researchers are working on growing whole organs from the extracellular scaffolds of cadavers, but this technique is in its infancy and I would take all news concerning it with a grain of salt.
Unfortunately, we are limited by which organs and tissues we can replace. Case in point: we cannot transplant the brain. Intracellular and extracellular buildup (eg. amyloid beta, lipofuscins, etc) will cause inflammation and cellular damage, and there is no way to remove them. Loss of telomeres and the accumulation of mutations leads to the breakdown of the genome, which is the host of the majority of a cell's state information. We ARE computer programs, and the moment memory gets corrupted things start to break down and behave improperly. The probability of any one of an unlimited number disease states in a cell correlates also with the level of misfolded, degraded, improperly tagged or trafficked gene products, which will always increase with time, even if the central program is well-behaved.
Remaining at homeostasis requires us to not reach chemical equilibrium, which requires we consume a ton of energy. Converting the necessary molecules during cellular metabolism puts our cells under heavy oxadative stress. Living requires a substantial number of evolved countermeasures, but eventually it will all catch up to us.
Why then are we so inept in our understanding of biology? The sheer astounding complexity of our biological machinery is not matched by any other problem that faces us. Biotechnology is amazing, but we are vastly limited by what we can do outside the context of in vitro techniques or simple, sacaled down in vivo assays. The real systm is always too complex to fully understand, and with so many unknowns we are essentially flying without radar. We can study proteins, promoters, etc. (slowly and with great difficulty) but we cannot "repair" them. We can't excise a damaged region of the genome and replace it at will. You would probably be shocked to see what techniques are actually even available--with my own limited experience it often feels like we are blindly throwing darts at targets that may not even exist. Our sequence information gives us clues, but we lack structural information (especially post-translational modifications) or knowledge of interaction details in the biochemical pathway.
If every physicist, computer scientist, mathematician or engineer stopped what they were doing and began work on this problem we might make some headway. Right now our hands are tied. This is absolutely the most important and complex problem in the world. We need the transcriptome, proteome, interactome, complete structure data, better algorithms, faster computers, higher resolution imaging (spatial, temporal, etc), better techniques, higher througput, I could go on and on. We certainly haven't entered the industrial age of biotech yet...
Do consider giving biology a try. We could use you and everyone willing. If you want to live twice as long, not get cancer or Alzheimer's, or cure any important infectious diseases, you should join us. Especially if you're a logical and abstract thinker.
- JabavuAdams 16y agoCan I ask you three questions? 1) What are the names of the courses you're taking this year? 2) What books are you reading for your studies? 3) Who would you most want to work with, in your field?
- possibilistic 16y agoI'm done with my undergrad CS and Bio education (with a few exceptions), and now I'm working on the finishing up on chem--then it's time for grad school. My biggest worry is that I do not know enough physics... I'm hoping P.chem rectifies that. For the next academic year I'm taking the following: Biotechnology, Physical chemistry, Analytical chemistry, Instrumental analysis, Biochemistry, Drug design, Cancer bio, and doing some limited original research. My favorite books in the past were "Cell and Molecular Biology" by Karp, "Molecular Biology" by Weaver, and "Janeway's Immunobiology", all of which enabled me to read the primary literature and contributed greatly to how I now see the world. There are also a bunch of poor or suboptimal ones that are not really worth worth pursuing. Once you read a few good texts, jumping right into a journal of interest is highly integrative! Perhaps this is unwise of me, but I haven't yet made note of any of the people that are doing the reseach I'm most interested in. Even if I did, I probably won't be able to do work with them at this early stage. In any case, my hope is that I can spend most of my time coding and searching through the chemical state space and biochemical pathways with computers. I strongly feel high-throughput techniques are indespensible and need to be utilized to make the best use of limited, prescious time. I would still enjoy spending some days in the lab running assays as they can also be quite fun.
- JabavuAdams 16y agoThanks, and good luck!
- Dn_Ab 16y agoI enjoy machine learning, pure and applied maths. Where do I start? Any books, any summaries of the state of the art for the computationally inclined? I ignorantly guess that graph theory, statistics and perhaps even group theory may provide useful perspectives? I know dynamical systems theory has been applied and hear you can code new simple organisms or something? Am I talking nonsense? heh This has always been an end goal of mine but I don't know where to begin. I figure start now and in 5 - 10 years I'll be ready to join you :)