Slashdot Mirror


Computational Simulations of E.coli

Gearoid_Murphy writes, "BBC news has the story of a scientist who has been using computational models of bacteria to advance our understanding of actual bacteria — a step towards simulating fully fledged organisms in virtual environments and potentially an extraordinarily powerful tool for medical science."

51 comments

  1. FTA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Any little corner of a living cell is just full of complicated machinery and molecules."

    Machinery implies a machinist. Ergo God is a coverall-wearing, coolant-spattered, filing-covered graveyard shift joe job worker.

    1. Re:FTA by Darlantan · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I like that image better than most of the ones propogated by common religions.
      I wouldn't mind Heaven if I could go grab a beer and some bowling with God.

      --
      Fill in your four or five-letter word of wisdom here _ _ _ _ _.
  2. Say what? by syousef · · Score: 1

    BBC news has the story of a scientist who has been using computational models of bacteria to advance our understanding of actual bacteria

    So the story is a simulation that actually simulates what it's simulating? (Isn't that what a simulation's suppose to do? Model and echo what happens in the real world)

    How stimulating.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Say what? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      I agree. It's basically saying, "Scientist is modeling something."

      *yawn*

      Let me know when he gets *results*. Anyone can "make a model".

    2. Re:Say what? by Hoplite3 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, kind of. This type of big big model tells you that all of its pieces are essentially correct in modeling the bacteria behavior. My criticism of this type of modeling is that you don't learn much more. Simplified models are usually more revealing, in my opinion, because
        (1) You have to know which pieces you can simplify how, and doing so shows you what's important and what's just details.
        (2) You can actually analyze a simple model to see if it predicts things you didn't learn from direct experiments, and then check these new predictions with experiments.
      So much of science is sifting through the noise to find the pattern. Big models model everything, but they can't tell you what's important, or at least you can't get that information out easily. You can probably tell from my bias what kind of modeling I do. Still, I think the big tools in mathematical biology haven't been developed yet. There are big ideas in analysis and topology being used to analyze data from experiments to identify broad trends and hidden patterns. These sort of techniques really help with (1).

      Still, I'd go see a talk on this. I'll bet he has some cool movies :)

      (Also, this thing probably involves estimating hundreds, if not thousands of reaction rates, and other such constants. Getting everything to work must have been hell.)

      --
      Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
    3. Re:Say what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Anyone can "make a model".

      While, I think we all agree that results are generally more important than methods, your statement is highly insulting to computational modelers everywhere.

    4. Re:Say what? by Thusi02 · · Score: 1

      There isn't much news about this. The field of Bioinformatics has been around for quite sometime now. Where the analysis of genomes of bacteria such as the E.Coli or C.elegans has been done quite extensively. I believe every week a new species genome is published on the NCBI site. This can than be used to understand their homology between other species and than perhaps identify why humans can't fly yet or fight of disease or grow limbs back. Even though the field of Bioinformatics is rather developing rapidly, I feel that already alot of information has been gathered. Now its all about analysing the tons and tons of nucleotides and protein sequences.

      Cheers,
      Thusjanthan Kubendranathan

      --
      For all your coding questions? http://letstalkcoding.com
      For all your development needs! http://simtik.com
    5. Re:Say what? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      Yes. The story is about the fact that these simulations are actually approaching being correct.

      Sort of like physics; every discovery in physics is always about how our understanding of the universe is approaching correctness.

      A lot of models don't work. A lot of simulations are broken either because they are wrong, too simple, or irrelevant.

    6. Re:Say what? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      In the world of intracellular biology, having a simulation that actually simulates what it is supposed to is a major accomplishment.

      Imagine if you didn't know how a computer was constructed, other than knowing it was composed of millions of transistors, resistors, capacitors, and other electronic components. Now imagine having simulated transistors, resistors, capacitors, and other electronic components. How difficult would it be (not knowing how a computer is constructed) to put together these simulated components to get a working simulation of a computer? How rewarding would it be just to get an accurate model of RAM working?

      Now, let's take a look at the bacteria. We know it is constructed of DNA, RNA, proteins, amino acids, and other biochemicals. The team has developed a simulation of these components (not knowing how the components fit together) that mimics chemotaxis. This is a major step in developing a computer model that mimics the entire behaviour of a bacterium.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    7. Re:Say what? by d2tu · · Score: 1

      While computer simulations are limited to what you program in to them, it's not always obvious what result you're going to get when you create a model and implement it. With as few as 3 chemical components you can create complex dynamics including chaos and other non linear behaviors that are not always predictable and rarely intuitive. Having read Dr. Bray's work, he was analyzing the effect of random fluctuations in the model and the model allowed him to figure out the mechanism that allowed a bacteria to adapt to chemical gradients. This would have been very difficult if not impossible if he tried to do this through typical wet lab techniques.

    8. Re:Say what? by syousef · · Score: 1

      Gimme a break. With my background, I have lots of respect for scientists that spend their life computer modelling. It ain't slashdot front page news, and even if that were arguable, you wouldn't know from the submission that was so badly written it should never have been accepted.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    9. Re:Say what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this the one? Computer analysis of the binding reactions leading to a transmembrane receptor-linked multiprotein complex involved in bacterial chemotaxis. D Bray and R B Bourret Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcg i?artid=301293&tools=bot

  3. Bullshit alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy just warezed a copy of Spore and his keygen drops a trojan.

  4. The Matrix! by headkase · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We'll start with bacteria and move our way up to humans! ;)
    Hopefully this would eventually allow risky medial treatments to be simulated before they have to be performed with a scan of the patients physiology as a reference.

    --
    Shh.
    1. Re:The Matrix! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > We'll start with bacteria and move our way up to humans! ;)

      If we really do this, what would the ID people say?

    2. Re:The Matrix! by jmp_nyc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We'll start with bacteria and move our way up to humans! ;)
      Hopefully this would eventually allow risky medial treatments to be simulated before they have to be performed with a scan of the patients physiology as a reference.


      The scientific community is already working on it, as you might well imagine. Take a look here for a list of published databases of protein interactions and metabolic pathways. The drug companies are throwing money at developing systems that can use this sort of data to (for example) predict negative drug interactions well before a new drug gets anywhere near clinical trials. They're also being used to better understand exactly how existing drugs work, trying to isolate causes of desired effects from those of side effects. This is an emerging field, applying well studied (in computer science) principles of graph theory to biological networks that are only now being mapped.
      -JMP

    3. Re:The Matrix! by samurphy21 · · Score: 1

      "Bravo"? "Thank you for lending credence to our claims"?

      Intelligent design is not creationism. Creationism implies "poof, humans exist because God says so". Intelligent Design says "Evolution occurs because it was guided by God to give humans as the final outcome". I think ID is a much more sensible idea than Creationism and, inevitably, will be what the church adopts, just as they, eventually, adopted the idea of a Copernican universe, despite long, long years of keeping an Aristotlian view.

      ID doesn't say "Evolution is a crock", just "Random evolution is a crock". It's a much softer edged view and fits well with both the theme of the bible, if not the text, as well as meshing more or less with the secular evidence.

    4. Re:The Matrix! by mrpeebles · · Score: 1

      I think ID means many different things to many different people. Your statement "Evolution occurs because it was guided by God to give humans as the final outcome" can itself mean many different things. It could be stating that evolution is more or less correct as a scientific theory, but should motivate a theistic world view. Or it could be stating that we will never be able to understand the beginning of life, and that this should motivate a theistic world view. Or it could mean that we cannot completely understand the entire history of the differentiation of the species within the framework of evolution, and that this should motivate a theistic belief. What is more, the phrase "random evolution" is also very vague. "Random" does not necessarily mean "accidental." I think what you are objecting to is something like the idea of accidental evolution, which I suppose would motivate an atheistic world view. But the scientific theory of evolution doesn't, in and of itself, claim to motivate a theistic or atheistic world view. I think that if ID were only concerned with whether evolution should motivate a theistic or atheistic (or deistic, etc) world view, it wouldn't have anything to say about how evolution is taught in science class, since evolution as a scientific theory doesn't have anything to say about that anyway.

    5. Re:The Matrix! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very well put! Excellent!

    6. Re:The Matrix! by mrpeebles · · Score: 1

      Let me also say that what you are thinking of may not be "Intelligent design", but what is sometimes referred to as theistic evolution.

    7. Re:The Matrix! by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      I strongly hope God was intelligent enough to not plan humans as the 'final outcome'.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    8. Re:The Matrix! by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      Which makes it quite likely that we're living in a simulation ourselves...

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  5. Very interesting news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for once, it's something I give a couple of shits about

    1. Re:Very interesting news by afaik_ianal · · Score: 1

      Very interesting comment. For once, an insightful comment from an AC.

  6. Does this simulation also include... by Channard · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... a fully 3D representation of the work-counter of a kebab shop, where the E-Coli simulation starts?

    1. Re:Does this simulation also include... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is a 3-d simulation of the disgusting sperm-filled
      keyboard of a racist slashdot reader!

  7. I dont care what the computers say..... by LibertineR · · Score: 0
    .....avoid ingesting feces, unless there is something attractive about bleeding from ones be-hind.

    What next? Is some bored dude going to do a computer model on just what is it that makes Anna Nicole Smith stupid?

    I dont know about you, but when do we get the computer models showing exactly why Guinness tastes better than Budweiser, so someone can share that data in time to save me some damn money?

    1. Re:I dont care what the computers say..... by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      As soon as some beverage company decides to model human taste buds in order to determine how they can modify their beverage to make it more appealing to consumers without actually modifying the process by which they brew their beverage, brewing a new batch, and conducting taste trials. Simulations are likely to cost less than actually making and testing the modifications to their recipes or processes.

    2. Re:I dont care what the computers say..... by pimpimpim · · Score: 1
      Simulations are likely to cost less than actually making and testing the modifications to their recipes or processes.

      If the simulation framework would already exist, you would be right, but in the particular case you mention you're probably not: you'd have to first find out which receptors in the tastebuds are responsible and what their structure is. To be honest, computer simulation is still far away from such amazingly complex tasks.

      Furthermore changing a beverage can be done fairly cheaply, you just need a small test setup to do the brewing, and then do batches after each other, you could try a lot mixes in a month. Then for tasting you could use an "artificial nose", or just do it yourself.

      Anything that contains a molecular mixture with loads of different chemical interactions (I'm not even considering reactions here) is still an immense task for simulation, as all the parameters you put in to it have to be tested individually. Current simulation has strengths, e.g. in material design to test high-pressure extreme force conditions, that would be either impossible or very expensive to perform. In the case of beer-brewing probably the most in reach of simulation would be to optimize foam stability, although even that would be a pretty difficult task!

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
  8. What for Spore by schmidtjas · · Score: 0

    " a step towards simulating fully fledged organisms in virtual environments and potentially an extraordinarily powerful tool for medical science " Well we just need to wait for Spore, amiright?

  9. Oh noes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And these things are walking up and down my ass? Yikes.

  10. Can this article be more dumbed down? by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hence, discrepancies between what the scientists see in biological experiments and what they see in the simulations allows them to test the models. If there is a mismatch it suggests the model is incorrect and needs to be refined.

    Wow, that kinda sounds like.. umm, what's the word I'm after here, umm, science, yes, that's it.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  11. One word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SIMS...

  12. Article short on details, but interesting by gardyloo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That article pretty much sucks for communicating anything that the scientist is doing. I won't remedy that, but I'll say this: I audited a biophysics class two semesters ago, and the astounding complications of what goes on in cells was a real eye-opener. Of course, I'd learned about chemical pathways, and mitochondria, etc., before, but the class showed how damned complicated and *fast* everything is at the cellular scale.
          The professor used this analogy: think of filling a football/soccer (your choice) stadium with ping-pong balls, and paint just two of those balls orange. Then hire some bulldozers to push the balls around randomly and continuously for several decades. How often will the orange balls collide with each other? Once a week? Once a month? Once a year? Maybe only once in a decade? Now envision the stadium scaled down to the size of a cell, with the ping-pong balls now being your average-sized molecule important for some process (chunks of amino acids, say). These will be moving around randomly due to Brownian motion, chemical gradients, etc. How often will two given molecules interact? Probably several times per second. THAT's how amazingly extreme cellular processes are.

            It's that sort of analogy (sorry it wasn't about cars, but we could probably work those in somehow) that the article should have had. This stuff is complicated, and requires VERY efficient computation. Kudos to the researchers, and pfft! to the author of the article.

    1. Re:Article short on details, but interesting by kramulous · · Score: 1

      Not a bad analogy ... but from what I've seen, anything but *random* movement.

      --
      .
  13. Who let you out of the Tofu factory? by LibertineR · · Score: 0, Troll
    Have you nothing better to do?

    Here is a clue, hippie: Find something else on which to base your self-esteem.

    Now, get back to the line, and don't forget to bag your sandals.

  14. LOL by SilentOneNCW · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wow, figures. I actually used TFA for my Cambridge application -- nice to see it appearing on /. albeit slightly later than I expected. Really though, Cambridges Computer Science Lab (funded by our friend Bill Gates, among others) is doing some amazing things. Check out their website at http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/.

  15. So now scientists don't have to revive old bacteri by ghostbar38 · · Score: 0

    Don't have to revive old bacteries and let the life flow :) We aren't going to die!!! Weeeeeeeee!

    --
    ghostbar page.
  16. Pfft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet he just used Conway's Game of Life.

  17. Need to know basis. by camperdave · · Score: 1

    You don't need to know *WHY* Guinness tastes better than Budweiser, all you need to know is that Guinness *DOES* taste better than Budweiser. Thus you can spend your money on quality beer right from the outset.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  18. I've had E.Coli by dorianh49 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've had E.Coli before, but I'm not quite sure what a computational simulation of severe diarrhea would look like; maybe Microsoft code?

    --
    Gravity is a contributing factor in nearly 73 percent of all accidents involving falling objects. -Dave Barry
  19. I know why by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    I dont know what they modelled but I know why they modelled it. So that the California Spinach farmers can claim, "No E Coli was actually harmed in filming this commercial".

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  20. ten year old news by dorpus · · Score: 1

    They had articles like this ten years ago, that some grad student somewhere simulated an "actual bacterium" on a PC. The topic is useful primarily as a graduate student's thesis topic, along with "robotic simulations".

  21. A step? by Plutonite · · Score: 1

    a step towards simulating fully fledged organisms in virtual environments..

    Yeah but it's like, a really small step isn't it? You couldn't do anything useful with it except maybe simulate Dubya's cerebral activity, and that's not very useful at all.

    And besides, didn't you hear: Virtual Environments/Machines are going to be banned on Vista!

  22. Sounds interesting, but don't jump the gun by muleboy · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't know this research, and the article doesn't really say anything at all, but as a grad student who has done a lot of cell modeling research, I like his approach of limiting the model to something very simple and easy to verify. We are a long, long way off from "simulating fully fledged organisms in virtual environments". Probably not in our lifetimes. You just have no idea how complex even E. coli is until you study it, and if you have, you'll understand how primitive and limited our models are.

    1. Re:Sounds interesting, but don't jump the gun by acidfast7 · · Score: 1

      I do, I work within the field of bacterial chemotaxis and have spoken with Dr. Bray. You're right, chemotaxis was an excellent modeling choice due to wealth of knowledge available (20-30 years of prior experimental research).

  23. Re:Hey, Windows/Linux Refugees! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Duddeee....I pray to good you beat off into your socks, we can't have retards like you breeding!....re-read what you posted....don't you just feel like the biggest loser??

  24. Anyone can "make a model". by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    TFA (that is customary not to read) may be short on substance but it can also be said "I can pull results out of my arse", science = observations + models, you cannot judge any result without access to the observations and a basic understanding of the model.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  25. Greg Egan's Permutation by 3.14159265 · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of this book (I think I got the right name, read it a couple of years ago.)
    Hard-scifi, check it out!