3 ms·

Everything has a name, but it is generally a “systematic” name[1] rather than a one-off descriptive name. Even DNA is a systematic name for the monomer (de-oxy-

by frisco 5y ago

Everything has a name, but it is generally a “systematic” name[1] rather than a one-off descriptive name. Even DNA is a systematic name for the monomer (de-oxy-ribose-nucleic-acid is one of the defined nucleic acids bound to a ribose sugar missing an oxygen at the 2-position carbon). Biology uses an enormous space of small molecule structures (to say nothing of proteins, which have their own naming schemes) and few have names you might recognize generally, but all have useful systematic names that biologists and chemists can quickly parse. As a twist, most systematic naming schemes don’t produce unique labels, so there’s often multiple ways to say the same thing, and different discipline subcultures have different biases in this regard. Edit: re-reading OP, another interpretation is that they’re asking what percent of molecules in the body aren’t involved in biology. The answer to that is probably something that approximates 0%. At the end of the day, the combined interaction of all of this chemistry is what biology is, and everything is more or less everywhere. (…concentration is everything.) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_name#In_chemistry https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_name#In_chemistry

derefr 5y ago
> what percent of molecules in the body aren’t involved in biology. The answer to that is probably something that approximates 0%. I think the answer might be different (and more interesting) if constrained to human biology. What percentage of the variety of “stuff” in our bloodstream/tissues, that came in from our air/water/food and then maybe got metabolized a bit, is now of a form entirely inapplicable to anything going on — or that could even potentially go on — in a human body? How much is pure “waste to be excreted” from the human perspective, with both no use in keeping it around, but also no danger in keeping it around? (I know that this is at least what allantoin is for the species that make it; but we’re not one of those.) I presume a lot of toxins that get inactivated by the liver end up in such a form.
- whoisburbansky 5y ago
  Depending on your definition of "no use in keeping it around." Apparently it's fairly useful as a moisturizer and as a skin protectant. You're still correct, of course, in the sense that it's not metabolically useful, but it's kind of amusing to me that it's got these other cosmetic effects that are in some sense useful.
murphyslab 5y ago
Not everything can nor does have a "name". First, there are kinds of molecules which we have not yet imagined yet, for which we do not yet have an IUPAC naming system. One could be devised, however that's an ongoing task. Think of the endohedral fullerenes — metal atoms stuck inside of buckyball cages — those have really only been directly in chemists' sights for 30 or so years. [0] Another pair of extrema are 2D materials and network solids, which are effectively massive molecules. Again, we don't have a great naming system for them, even if we could properly catalogue all of the bonds (and enclosed species). And more practically, one is probably better off with a set of atomic coordinates to describe them. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endohedral_fullerene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endohedral_fullerene
- frisco 5y ago
  I mean, sure.

by frisco 5y ago

derefr 5y ago

> what percent of molecules in the body aren’t involved in biology. The answer to that is probably something that approximates 0%. I think the answer might be different (and more interesting) if constrained to human biology. What percentage of the variety of “stuff” in our bloodstream/tissues, that came in from our air/water/food and then maybe got metabolized a bit, is now of a form entirely inapplicable to anything going on — or that could even potentially go on — in a human body? How much is pure “waste to be excreted” from the human perspective, with both no use in keeping it around, but also no danger in keeping it around? (I know that this is at least what allantoin is for the species that make it; but we’re not one of those.) I presume a lot of toxins that get inactivated by the liver end up in such a form.

whoisburbansky 5y ago
Depending on your definition of "no use in keeping it around." Apparently it's fairly useful as a moisturizer and as a skin protectant. You're still correct, of course, in the sense that it's not metabolically useful, but it's kind of amusing to me that it's got these other cosmetic effects that are in some sense useful.

murphyslab 5y ago

Not everything can nor does have a "name". First, there are kinds of molecules which we have not yet imagined yet, for which we do not yet have an IUPAC naming system. One could be devised, however that's an ongoing task. Think of the endohedral fullerenes — metal atoms stuck inside of buckyball cages — those have really only been directly in chemists' sights for 30 or so years. [0] Another pair of extrema are 2D materials and network solids, which are effectively massive molecules. Again, we don't have a great naming system for them, even if we could properly catalogue all of the bonds (and enclosed species). And more practically, one is probably better off with a set of atomic coordinates to describe them. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endohedral_fullerene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endohedral_fullerene

frisco 5y ago
I mean, sure.