6 ms·
Hmm, there are several things I find strange about this article. There are 22 proteinogenic amino acids (admittedly two are rare, selenocysteine and pyrrolysin
by nicwilson 7y ago
Hmm, there are several things I find strange about this article.
There are 22 proteinogenic amino acids (admittedly two are rare, selenocysteine and pyrrolysine, but with rarity comes importance when they do occur).
The search for the correct amino acid is not class balanced, e.g. the aromatics are much less common.
The tRNAs are also not equally distributed, neither in the codon-anticodon pairing, the aromatics are coded for by only one or two, I suppose this is somewhat reflected in the frequency (see above).
Even within one amino acids possible tRNA the ratio's are species dependant to a remarkable degree (see codon optimisation in genetic engineering. You can also tell by sequence analysis if horizontal transfer has occurred if the frequencies are all wrong) and is used to regulate synthesis. e.g. if a species has tRNA UUU : tRNA UUC of 3 : 1 then (classically) one would expect a protein incorporating phenylalanine as UUC to take 3 times longer than UUU to incorporate.
- zahreeley 7y agoappreciate the author man. No crib
- knzhou 7y agoThis is all correct, and shows why both biologists and physicists don't take the conclusions of Patel's paper too seriously. Just aiming for "20" without any context for what that means is a bad kind of numerology. There's probably a grain of truth in the paper, but only enough to get to something like "20 plus or minus 10", not exactly "20". Speaking as an MIT alumnus, some of the school's promotional material is glitzy on the outside and hollow on the inside. The MIT Tech Review's "Emerging Technologies" column is particularly bad. I've written numerous rants over the years rebutting incredibly misleading viral articles from it. It's a shame that people automatically trust it because of the MIT name.
- jessriedel 7y agoMIT Tech Review is no longer associated with MIT. The name is historical vestige. It's just another magazine like Popular Science.
- colechristensen 7y agoWeird that they wouldn't protect their trademark
- tyingq 7y agoNot sure that "no longer associated with MIT" is exactly right. "our coverage is independent of any influence, including our ownership by MIT." https://www.technologyreview.com/about/ https://www.technologyreview.com/about/
- dekhn 7y agothat's not correct, they are owned by MIT.
- jessriedel 7y agoThanks you're right. The important idea I was remembering is that they have no editorial connection to the university; they're just an investment.
- lonelappde 7y agoIt's part of the trend of MIT and many other venerable institutions cashing out their reputation instead of building on it.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Ultimatt 7y agoYup the biology bit is hocus pocus. If you read the single author arxiv paper referenced, its thinking is quite confused on the biology. The main thing discussed is hydrogen bonding between nucleotide pairs which doesn't fit the magic numbers. Then in an odd Q and A section its eluded to that mrna-trna interactions do, therefore it must be. Already the different bond lengths of the hydrogen bonding is known to be part of optimising that process. It says nothing about selection of nucleotides from the surrounding environment being magically quantum, rather than classically diffusive. That's something this blog article made up out of nothing.
- omar_a1 7y agoI was also confused about the assertion that biologists dismissed quantum mechanic's affects on biological systems. Biochemists have known about this phenomenon for decades, including photosynthesis.
- lonelappde 7y agoIt seems not so clear cut? This article mentions a controversy on the topic: https://physicsworld.com/a/is-photosynthesis-quantum-ish/ https://physicsworld.com/a/is-photosynthesis-quantum-ish/
- omar_a1 7y agoMaybe I'm just using a less narrow definition of quantum mechanics? I'm not referring to the specific quantum phenomena referenced in the article, but to quantum mechanics in general. In other words, since these redox steps are happening on a molecular scale, that of course quantum mechanics falls under its purview - as would anything else happening on this small of a scale. For instance, not factoring in steric factors (e.g. uncertainty principle) or electron tunneling in the transfer of electrons during photosynthesis or cellular respiration would probably throw off your models. Biochemists are well aware of this; you couldn't effectively understand chemistry without understanding quantum mechanics.
- 7y ago