Biomolecular machines

Meanwhile, in the real world of science, biomolecular machines really are machines that perform a function.

These machines are multi-protein complexes an fit the following criteria which you conveniently snipped. Here they are again. Live with it.

Availability:
The parts needed for a machine to function need to be available.

Synchronization:
The availability of these parts need to be synchronized so that they are all present at the time the machine needs to function.

Localization:
The parts must be made available at the same site of the construction of the machine. Not at the same time necessarily, but at least at the same site at the time they are needed.

Interface compatibility:
The parts must be mutually compatible and capable of mutually interacting in a proper way.

Coordination:
The above four criteria are useless if the parts are not coordinated in the right way.

But if you still can't get the fact that science describes these multi-protein complexes as machines (heaven knows you only need a quick survey of the literature, heck this thread gave you plenty of examples), how about reading... more published literature...

Interesting article:
Rise of the machines: Bruce Alberts and the biochemistry of multi-protein complexes
Mol Biosyst. 2008 Nov;4(11):1043-1045.
Professor Bruce Alberts of the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) celebrated his 70th birthday in April of this year. There are few people that can rival Bruce with respect to his impact on science both inside and outside the laboratory. In recognition of Bruce’s storied career, we are pleased to dedicate this special issue of Molecular BioSystems to him.

The articles in this special issue of Molecular BioSystems focus on this fascinating area of multi-protein complex chemistry, biochemistry and molecular biology. They reveal that the Alberts paradigm of thinking of these complexes as highly interactive, tightly regulated biochemical machines has held up well over the years and guided many of the important studies that have elucidated their mechanism of action.

Finally, on a personal note, I had the pleasure of working in Bruce’s laboratory at UCSF for two years in the 1980’s. Therefore, I can personally attest to the fact that one of the reasons Bruce has made so many important discoveries is that he is frighteningly smart.

Guess you are stuck between a rock and a hard place...
1) Scientists are delusional when describing multi-protein complex proteins as biochemical machines.
2) These multi-protein complex proteins really are biochemical machines.

Want some tinfoil to read post #317...?
 
Last edited:
They reveal that the Alberts paradigm of thinking of these complexes as highly interactive, tightly regulated biochemical machines

Now I know your English is weak, but what part of that don't you get? To spell it out, it is an analogy. Y'know, planes are like birds in many respects, but they ain't birds.

The most important aspect of the definition of a machine you leave out is "human engineered". I do, of course, realise that you want us to think of these biological structures as "engineered", so that we can see god behind it all, but sadly there is neither evidence therefor, nor any need to posit any magical mysterious beings.

To paraphrase Ogden:

One thing that biology would be greatly the better for
Would be a more restricted employment by the authors of simile and metaphor.

No "machines"; maybe things that are "like machines" in some respects.
 
How else would you describe a multi-protein complex that does work and consists of fixed and/or moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form?
What is it? Not a machine, it just has all the properties of a machine?

A few definitions of a machine:
1) A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form.
2) a structure consisting of a framework and various fixed and moving parts, for doing some kind of work
3) an assemblage of parts that transmit forces, motion, and energy one to another in a predetermined manner heck this dictionary even gives the following:
a living organism or one of its functional systems

Contrary to your assertion that
The most important aspect of the definition of a machine you leave out is "human engineered".
"machine" merely refers to a device that can do work. Some machines are human engineered, some are not.

Now let's look at the DNA-replicating apparatus again (1:40 min and onwards):
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UoKYGKxxMI[/ame]

1) Parts:
Sliding clamps (Green circular shaped)
Clamp loader (Blue-white component in the middle)
Helicase (Blue)
DNA polymerase (Dark-blue components attached to the sliding clamps)
Primase (Green component attached to helicase)
Leading strand (Spinning off to the right)
Lagging strand (Spinning off to the top)

2) Work being done:
Helicase unwinds the DNA double helix.
Sliding clamps provide scaffolding (among other things) for the polymerases.
Polymerases make copies of the unwinded DNA.
At the replication fork during replication, the clamp loader loads the sliding clamps many times onto the lagging strand (after DNA priming) and only once onto the leading strand. They also act as a bridge to connect the leading and lagging strand polymerases and the helicase.

Thus, the DNA-replicating apparatus replicates DNA by doing work. But it gets better.

Replication occurs at about 1000 base pairs per second due to the highly efficient combination of sliding clamps and the polymerases. Thus, helicases need to unwind DNA at at least that speed. Unwinding DNA too slowly and the replication machinery might break down . Unwind the DNA too fast or untimely and harmful mutations might occur as single-stranded DNA is prone to degradation and cytosine deamination. The speed at which helicase unwinds DNA is no accident though, as it is intrinsically controlled. As helicase is bound to the lagging strand, it unwinds the leading strand in a separate direction. Applying a pulling force on the leading strand leads to a 7-fold increase in the speed of DNA unwinding by helicase. The highly efficient DNA polymerase/sliding clamp combination provides this controlling force on the leading strand. This forms a robust unwinding/polymerization interaction whereby polymerization controls and prevents unwanted DNA unwinding.

The DNA-replicating apparatus satisfies the following criteria:
Availability:
The parts needed for a machine to function need to be available.

Synchronization:
The availability of these parts need to be synchronized so that they are all present at the time the machine needs to function.

Localization:
The parts must be made available at the same site of the construction of the machine. Not at the same time necessarily, but at least at the same site at the time they are needed.

Interface compatibility:
The parts must be mutually compatible and capable of mutually interacting in a proper way.

Coordination:
The above four criteria are useless if the parts are not coordinated in the right way.

The DNA-replicating apparatus provides a robust way for DNA replication to prevent unnecessary DNA damage and mutation and is a bona fide biomolecular machine.

This does not imply that the machine must have been designed or is designed contrary to your metaphysical musings. It is just a DNA-replicating machine with parts that do work.

Can we expect you or any other pointless ponderers to contribute by giving examples of biomolecular machines and leave the metaphysics alone? Why not? I must say that I find it fascinating that you guys have such an aversion for the biomolecular machines that make you who you are...
 
Last edited:
But if you still can't get the fact that science describes these multi-protein complexes as machines (heaven knows you only need a quick survey of the literature, heck this thread gave you plenty of examples), how about reading... more published literature...

More from that most perceptive debunking article by Robert Camp:

There is a vast reservoir of data and documentation pertaining to the biological disciplines. There are many, many journals, textbooks, scholarly papers and databases full of observations, methods and conclusions drawn from the experiences of biologists. Even a cursory examination of this work demonstrates that similes, metaphors, casual analogies and teleological references are ubiquitous in the literature.

Professors often refer to evolutionary processes using terms such as “try” and “goal” (e.g. “the organism’s goal is to pass on its genes to the next generation) as if biology acts in accord with a plan. And scientists frequently use similes to characterize the functions of particular structures,


Though there may well be a few biologists who use this terminology because they feel it reflects higher order purpose, for the vast majority of scientists it is simply a device of convenience, a way of avoiding the awkward phraseology that would come from having to launder their language of all shorthand teleological references.

Also evidenced by your own quote.
 
If it works like a machine, looks like a machine and does just about everything a machine does, I guess it is a convenient device to say it is a machine ;):p. After all, these biomolecular machine are orders of magnitude more efficient than what we can conjure up...
 
Why are you so hung up about admitting that the use of the term is an analogy or a simile? The only reason I can conceive is that you wish to imply a supernatural "designer" and thereby bring your precious god into science, where he does not at this time belong. Or is "god" part of "science" in your book?

Besides, they don't look like machines at all - no visible evidence of human engineering.
 
I think you are just hung up on the fact that these multi-protein complexes work like machines, look like a machines and does just about everything a machines do.

Works like a machine? Just read the thread...
Looks like a machine? Differentiate between these motor machines (hint hint, one is human made)

Nanomotor.jpg

nano_gear.jpg

040825095826.jpg

(hint)

You keep bringing in metaphysics which is hilarious. I guess we can't we expect you or any other pointless ponderers to contribute by giving examples of biomolecular machines and leave the metaphysics alone BECAUSE of the baggage biomolecular machines carry (for you guys anyway :rolleyes:)?

This continued aversion for biomolecular machines that make you who you are continues to be fascinating though.
 
I'll take it that you are again going to avoid answering my question then? The question "Why are you so hung up about admitting that the use of the term is an analogy or a simile?". Should this thread be moved to PD then, seeing as it's about god?
 
This is hilarious. You want to drag this thread down to a PD squabble because you want to constantly inject metaphysics? You are as irrelevant as ever.

BTW, I am not hung up about multi-protein complexes being described as machines because they look and function exactly like machines. You seem to be though...

And this continued aversion for biomolecular machines that make you who you are continues to be fascinating...
 
As already mentioned, I am not hung up using analogies and simile to describe multi-protein complexes that function and look exactly like machines. After all, if it works like a machine, looks like a machine and does just about everything a machine does, I guess it is a convenient device to use simile and analogy to describe it as a machine.

You are the one that seems to be hung up though...
 
Good! I see you are making some progress. Here's a rather good comment from one inkadu in response to a P.Z. Myers blog entry:

Creationist machines are funny things. They must drive cars that weave left and right, on and off the road, but drive straight when you look at the average trajectory. It's not their fault they're such terrible drivers -- it's just how intelligently designed machines work. And when a creationist slows his car down, what he is really doing is accelerating AND braking simultaneously but that, on average, the car is braking more than it is accelerating.

Yep. Those creationist sure know how machines work all right -- right down to the molecular level.
 
Oh joy, some spam from the pharyngula site. Creationist machines? Meanwhile, back in the real world, the machines do work and fit the following criteria:
Availability
Synchronization
Localization
Interface compatibility
Coordination

A machine is a machine is a machine...simile and analogies and all...

Can we expect you or any others to contribute by giving examples of biomolecular machines and leave the metaphysics alone? This continued aversion for biomolecular machines that make you who you are continues to be fascinating...
 
Contemporary physicists, biologists and other scientists are increasingly taking on board computer science talk to describe biological systems as evidenced here:
Bacteria as computers making computers
The immune system is no different.

Large-scale Study Probes How Cells Fight Pathogens
ScienceDaily (Sep. 6, 2009) — Scientists have deciphered a key molecular circuit that enables the body to distinguish viruses from bacteria and other microbes, providing a deep view of how immune cells in mammals fend off different pathogens.
The new research, which appears in the September 3 advance online edition of the journal Science, signifies one of the first large-scale reconstructions of a mammalian circuit and offers a practical approach for unraveling the circuits that underpin other important biological systems.

"Our findings address a fundamental question in human biology: how do immune cells recognize various pathogens and use that information to mount distinct responses," said senior author Nir Hacohen, of the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Center for Immunology and Inflammatory Diseases, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School and a senior associate member at the Broad Institute. "We now have a detailed view of the circuitry that controls this critical process, providing a deeper understanding of immune biology that could inspire novel ways to treat disease and design better vaccines."

"One of the remarkable things about this study is the approach," said senior author Aviv Regev, a core member of the Broad Institute, an assistant professor at MIT and an early career scientist at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. "Our methods are not only general and applicable to almost any biological system, they are also practical for most laboratory settings. This is an important step that has broad implications for the scientific community."

Cells receive and process information much like computers. Information flows in, is read and processed through a complex set of circuits, and an appropriate response is delivered. But instead of tiny transistors, the internal circuitry of mammalian cells is made up of vast networks of genes and their corresponding proteins. A frontier of modern genomic research is to identify these molecular parts and their interconnections, which reflect the normal — and sometimes faulty — "wiring" that underlies human biology and disease. Until recently, research in this area focused on yeast and bacteria because it was nearly impossible to undertake in mammals.

With a deep-seated interest in specialized immune cells known as dendritic cells, a research team led by scientists at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and Massachusetts General Hospital set out to reveal the full scope of their internal circuitry. Dendritic cells are among the first to detect pathogens and can differentiate one type of pathogen from another, allowing them to orchestrate a pathogen-specific immune response. These cells accomplish such tasks through two crucial functions: first, they present small pieces of an infecting pathogen to other immune cells so those cells can learn to recognize it; and second, they instruct other cells to respond in ways that will eliminate the culprit pathogen.

To begin, lead author Ido Amit, a postdoctoral fellow at the Broad Institute and Massachusetts General Hospital, worked with his colleagues to assemble a detailed picture of the circuit's output. The researchers did this by measuring the activities of thousands of genes after mixing parts of different pathogens, including RNA from viruses and pieces of the bacteria Escherichia coli, with primary mouse dendritic cells. ("Primary" cells are taken directly from the body, rather than propagated for long periods in the laboratory.)

Next, they scoured these data to identify genes whose activities change with varying conditions. These genes form the circuit's potential regulatory framework, responsible for controlling the flow of information.

To figure out how these potential regulators work and how they are wired together, the researchers systematically eliminated each of them, and recorded the changes in the circuit's output. This was made possible by the use of RNA interference (RNAi), which can reduce or "knock down" the activity of specific genes and can be applied to practically every gene in the mouse genome.

"Our use of RNAi was essential," said Hacohen. "We couldn't have done this work without the efforts of our collaborators in the Broad's RNAi Platform and the tools developed by The RNAi Consortium." The researchers also used a single-molecule technology that enabled them to generate sensitive readouts of gene activity.

Regev, Hacohen, Amit and their colleagues revealed a dendritic cell circuit with two major arms: an inflammatory arm, which is highly active during bacterial infections and can initiate a system-wide immune response; and an anti-viral arm, which is induced upon viral infections and coordinates a more focused response tailored to viruses. Together, these arms encompass about 100 regulators — roughly four times as many as were previously known to be involved — and include several proteins that were not suspected to direct immune responses. "These unexpected findings really underscore the power of an unbiased approach," said Regev.

Another remarkable finding is the way these regulators operate. The researchers identified a surprising number of connections between regulators and other circuit components, more than 2,300 connections in total. In addition, some regulators seem to control a relatively broad swath of the circuit, including 25 genes or more, while others influence just a handful of genes. "A good analogy is the tuning dials on an old radio," said Amit. "The big knobs provide coarse adjustments, while the little ones tend to be fine tuners."

One intriguing "coarse tuner" is a protein called Timeless. In fruit flies, it controls circadian rhythms, the internal clock that keeps biological processes operating on a 24-hour cycle. In mammalian dendritic cells, however, Amit and his colleagues discovered that Timeless is a chief regulator of anti-viral responses, controlling over 200 genes required to fight viruses.

Another interesting regulator is CBX4, a "fine tuner" that controls the levels of a key protein involved in viral infections. This protein, called IFNB1 (for Interferon beta 1) requires precise control: if a virus is present, it must be highly active, yet if bacteria are the offending agents, its activity should be minimized.

Although the researchers' findings are largely mechanistic in nature and do not yet have any direct bearing on human disease, there are some important medical implications. For instance, a complete understanding of the regulatory network that controls immune responses can help lay the groundwork for more precise interventions, including drugs and vaccines. Moreover, 12 of the regulators identified in the Science study reside in regions of the genome that have been linked to autoimmune and other related diseases in humans, and could enhance researchers' understanding of the genetic susceptibilities to infections and other immune disorders

Circuits and circuitry, information processing, learning and and instructing, fine tuning, control etc... simile and analogies and all, this is how things work on a subcellular scale with machines and codes regulating the processes ;).
 
Last edited:
Can we expect you or any others to contribute by giving examples of biomolecular machines and leave the metaphysics alone?

I am satisfied as long as we are all leaving teleology and god out of the thread. We wouldn't want you making the same error as those ID propagandists Behe and Dembski are prone to make.
 
Guess we are not going to see you contribute then? A bit too teleological for you to do something constructive and towards an end?
Making the same mistake those dastardly anti-scientific and incoherent eliminative materialist propagandists are making?

Anyway, I am sure eliminative materialist propagandists will not be too thrilled to see articles like these in peer-reviewed literature:
The anaphase promoting complex/cyclosome: a machine designed to destroy.

The APC is an E3 ubiquitin ligase that forms part of the protein quality control system that plays a crucial role in protein homeostasis. The complex tags damaged, misfolded and other proteins ready to be degraded with ubiquitin. Once proteins are tagged by ubiquitin, the are transferred and degraded by the 26S proteasome machinery. Activity of the complex is strictly regulated and is dependent on one of several co-activator proteins. These co-activator proteins are in turn also strictly controlled during various phases of the cell cycle.

Basically what it does is selectively recognizes and tags proteins for destruction at the correct time during key events of mitosis (cell division). Two major functions include:
Cyclin proteolysis to activate initiation of anaphase (Cyclin B in particular)
Initiates sister-chromatid separation through the selective degradation of securin.

Inactivation of this complex results in death in all species in which it has been investigated so far.


The 26S proteasome: a molecular machine designed for controlled proteolysis.


Machines machines machines... doing work.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DMqnfrzpKg[/ame]

These articles just explain how these macromolecular structures work. That is it! Nothing more! So there is no need for you to throw a tantrum and drag the thread down to a PD-type squabble by injecting your usual irrelevant metaphysical ignorance. Do the right thing...be constructive and contribute and stop being such an antagonistic person without any goals :rolleyes:.
 
These articles just explain how these macromolecular structures work. That is it! Nothing more! So there is no need for you to throw a tantrum and drag the thread down to a PD-type squabble by injecting your usual irrelevant metaphysical ignorance.

Yes well I'm not the one making dodgy statements like:

Clever Design. :cool:
 
High-res View Of Zinc Transport Protein Reveals Shape-shifting Atomic Interactions; Suggests Mechanism And Possible Drug Targets

ScienceDaily (Sep. 13, 2009) — How much difference can a tenth of a nanometer make? When it comes to figuring out how proteins work, an improvement in resolution of that miniscule amount can mean the difference between seeing where atoms are and understanding how they interact.

090913134022.jpg

Upper Panels: Atomic details of zinc binding to the zinc transporter protein, known as YiiP. Lower panel: A cartoon illustrating how zinc binding may change the protein shape to regulate the coordination geometry of the active site for zinc transport (shown as a tetrahedron in middle panel). (Credit: Image courtesy of DOE/Brookhaven National Laboratory)
Case in point: New, improved-resolution views of a zinc transporter protein deciphered at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory provide not just a structure but also a suggested mechanism for how cells sense and regulate zinc, an element that is essential for life, but which must be kept at a steady state to avoid problems like seizures, diabetes, and possibly Alzheimer's disease.

The new findings, to be published online on September 13, 2009, by Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, also suggest targets for zinc-regulating drugs, and may even advance the understanding of similar zinc-regulating enzymes in plant chloroplasts with possible implications for biofuel production.

"Our goal is to reveal atomic interactions in a protein structure to understand the chemistry that underlies the protein's biological function," said Brookhaven biologist Dax Fu, who led the research. "With this structure, we can begin to understand the mechanism of zinc transport at a chemical level."

The structure was revealed using x-ray crystallography at Brookhaven Lab's National Synchrotron Light Source (NSLS), a source of intense x-ray, ultraviolet, and infrared light. By studying how x-rays bounce off crystallized samples of a protein, scientists can reconstruct the location and orientation of the protein's atoms in three dimensions.

The Brookhaven team had previously used NSLS to solve a zinc transporter protein structure at lower resolution*. To achieve the new-and-improved structure, the scientists added mercury atoms to stabilize protein packing in the crystals. This increased the resolution of their x-ray vision by a mere angstrom (tenth of a nanometer). But because it brought the overall resolution of their structure to just below 3 angstroms — the point at which individual atoms begin to become visible — it enabled the scientists to see the protein in action as it bound to and transported zinc ions.

Using fluorescent probes, the scientists also studied how the protein changed shape in response to zinc binding. And they tested how changes to structural elements of the zinc transporter protein would affect its ability to transport zinc.

Together, these experiments suggest an auto-regulatory mechanism for zinc transport: Zinc binding within the cell triggers hinge-like movements of two electrically repulsive portions of the protein that lie within the cell's interior, which results in a conformational change in the portion of the protein that traverses the cellular membrane. So when zinc levels inside the cell rise too high, this shape shifting somehow pushes zinc ions through the membrane and out of the cell.

"Exactly how the protein pushes the zinc ions through the membrane has yet to be determined," said Fu, who added that this will be a focus of future research.

Conceivably, he added, drugs that bind to the zinc-sensing portions of the protein could be used to modulate zinc transport activity and help adjust zinc levels as possible treatments for diseases such as seizure disorders or diabetes. Brookhaven Science Associates, which manages Brookhaven Lab, has filed a patent application related to this work.

In addition, because other metal transporting proteins share similar architecture with the zinc transporter protein, the findings from this study may advance the understanding of other medical disorders linked to metal imbalance, as well as the development of possible treatments for those conditions.

Furthermore, this work may have implications for researchers trying to improve the prospects of biomass production in plants, an essential component to the development of biofuels. Zinc is an essential co-factor in a host of reactions in chloroplasts, the site of photosynthesis. But as is the case in animals, excess metals can be highly toxic in plants. Consequently, studies to help elucidate zinc-transporter protein function could help scientists understand how plants maintain the delicate balance needed for ideal growth.

Future studies of protein structures at Brookhaven Lab promise to reveal even greater mechanistic detail when a new light source, known as NSLS-II, opens in 2015. That facility, now under construction, will be 10,000 times brighter than NSLS. That boost in brightness — and therefore resolution — would be particularly important in the study of membrane proteins, which represent the vast majority of proteins of interest to those developing drugs, but which are also often difficult to crystallize.

"As illustrated by this study, even small improvements in x-ray diffraction resolution can greatly advance our mechanistic understanding of protein function," said Fu.

This research was performed at beamline X25A at the NSLS. The work was supported by the National Institutes of Health, DOE's Office of Science (Office of Basic Energy Sciences), and by the Biology Department at Brookhaven Lab.
 
Did you read the article? :)

Insinuation and repetition are your stock in trade. I'm quite sure you were not merely referring to the experiments. See your quote on #298 for another. More of your "teleological implications" it seems.:eek:
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X