Slashdot Mirror
Are 68 Molecules Enough To Understand Diseases?
Roland Piquepaille writes "A researcher from the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) claims that 68 molecules can explain the origins of many serious diseases. After reviewing findings from multiple disciplines, he 'realized that only 68 molecular building blocks are used to construct these four fundamental components of cells: the nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), proteins, glycans and lipids,' and he said that 'these 68 building blocks provide the structural basis for the molecular choreography that constitutes the entire life of a cell.'"
You should only need 42.
Doesn't seem like that low a number. What's the big deal?
Highly speculative and reductionistic. Just because you can reduce things down to a lower level of complexity, it doesn't mean that this reduced set of molecules explain everything life related.
Well I guess it's a step up from the widespread public perception that DNA determines everything.
68 should be enough for anyone.
He's just discovered something that's in every first-year biochemistry textbook that's been published for the last 30 years?
I love when 'cutting-edge research' is actually old information with a pretty new graph/picture/powerpoint slide/animation/etc.
An AC on Slashdot claims that 2 bits can explain the origins of many serious computer viruses. After reviewing findings from multiple hosts, he 'realized that only 2 bits are used to construct these four fundamental components of computers: the processor (x86 and x86_64), memory, storage and network tubes,' and he said that 'these 2 building blocks provide the structural basis for the bitwise choreography that constitutes the entire life of a computer.
Of course, two of those 68 molecules are RNA and DNA. The other 66 should be cake for anyone who understands either one of them.
Infuriate left and right
I got 68 molecules but a glycan ain't one of 'em.
Even better, all you need to understand why your computer doesn't boot is the 37 fundamental building blocks of computers, roughly divided into the plastics (acrylic, etc.), liquid crystals, metals (steel, iron, copper, silver, etc.), and silicon.
Now, go fix that BSOD.
How did this make slashdot? I have so many complaints with this
1. It's obvious - since these are the only components in cells, and they have all been known for years, how is this remotely interesting?
2. It's not really relevant - It's like me saying "100 elements are enough to understand disease" - yes, all biological processes may only involve 100, probably fewer, elements, but how the hell does that aid our understanding? It's the identities and actions of the resulting molecules and macromolecular complexes, not their components, which define their actions
3. If we're going to be anal it is far fewer molecules - The 4 bases of DNA and the proteins involved in their replication are all we need really to understand all disease processes, for it is from this template, and the proteins which they code for, that everything comes from. These 68 are all coded for in the DNA, even the DNA itself. One may wish to be a bit more anal and include mitochondrial DNA and proteins separately, as they are a separate genome technically.
4. This is misleading. Not all constituents in the body are made from merely these building blocks. What about hydroxyapatite? This is an incredibly common molecule in our bones, but like so many other molecules in the body, it is a relatively simple organic molecule.
What a thoroughly boring and unenlightening piece.
there are 8 nucleosides. They are part of the 68 count, so really 60.
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
And I correctly determined that 100% of diseases are caused by some combination of only 117 atomic elements. Give me my Nobel.
This might not be obvious to some : the study is saying that there are 68 *types* of molecules to build up cells.
The fact that they propose a closed number -- not necessarily that it's a small or large number -- is interesting. However, I wouldn't be surprised if this number increased, as our knowledge of the biochemistry of archaea, viruses and other organisms increases. It's like saying the current status of the periodic table of known elements is finished.
Hey! Only three subatomic particles are required to make up the atoms that these molecules are made of!
Seriously, what kind of crap is this and why is it news?
How did this make slashdot?
It was submitted by the Slashdot God of all Science Media, Roland Piquepaille, that's how.
sigfault (core dumped)
From TFA: "Like the periodic table of elements, first published in 1869 by Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev, is to chemistry, Marth's visual metaphor offers a new framework for biologists." OK, the article is thin and the work derivative, but the picture shows promise. I like any decent web-based periodic table, it just need links.
Reviewing findings from multiple disciplines, Jamey Marth, Ph.D... realized that only 68 molecular building blocks are used to construct these four fundamental components of cells: the nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), proteins, glycans and lipids...
... is to chemistry, Marth's visual metaphor offers a new framework for biologists.
Like the periodic table of elements
I've got 2 bits, a 0 and 1, I can encode almost any piece of information in it. Even a 2 year old can understand 0 and 1!!!
This stuff is easy.
he 'realized that only 68 molecular building blocks are used to construct these four fundamental components of cells: the nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), proteins, glycans and lipids,'
I can go even further and break it all down to 1s and 0s.
Noble Prize for Medical Breakthrough here I come!
ed duval the very last person
... have been found necessary to replicate all known English language poetry, prose, social and political literature, and scientific and technical writings. This includes such works foundational to the development of the post-modern age as Newton's Principia, Shakespeare's plays and sonnets, Feynman's lectures, Friedman's works on economics, and so forth.
Big whoop.
sigfault (core dumped)
Three...
I've managed to reduce all 68 of these molecules to a single commonality: Carbon!
Curing diseases with this information is left as an exercise for the reader. Just send me the Nobel Prize. Thanks. Couldn't have done it without Slashdot.
68 molecules ought to be enough for anyone.
This story is just blogspam from the king of blogpspam. Luckily I have a solution, a greasemonkey script to remove Roland Piquepaille stories from slashdot: http://parksideninjas.com/greasemonkey/antidvorakscript.user.js
What about hydroxyapatite? This is an incredibly common molecule in our bones, but like so many other molecules in the body, it is a relatively simple organic molecule.
Except it's not a simple organic molecule, but an inorganic mineral. Organic != Biogenic.
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
...a distinguished chemist has announced that by his calculations less than 100 elements are required to explain the material composition of all of the earth's problems How simple it all seems, suddenly. :)
This probably isn't a great article for Slashdot's front page. The original work referred to in the press release cited (and to be honest, the release overstates the original work to which it refers) is a piece of correspondence in a scientific journal of cell biology (Nature Cell Biology) from a cell biologist to fellow cell biologists calling for a more holistic approach to studying the origin of disease. It has a very specific target audience and a very specific message.
He states (correctly) that many people thought that decoding genetics would lead to understand the nature of disease, but that hasn't happened to the degree we thought it would. Rather, they (I'm not a cell biologist) need to look at the entire cell and all of the components of the cell, not just the genes and proteins.
To that end, he provides a very nice diagram that lists 4 major groups of organic molecules and shows at a high level how they fit together. It's a nice little reference piece for researchers and students and a nice reminder that the cell is a dynamic, complex body with many important components other than the genes and proteins that receive such a large amount of scrutiny.
Researcher Proposes New Framework For Understanding Cells, Disease.
Researcher Jamey Marth, publishing recently in Nature Cell Biology, has organized 68 molecular building blocks into four categories and illustrated their roles within cells. Marth suggests that organizing these building blocks, much as chemists organize the periodic table, will "provide a conceptual framework for biology that has the potential to enhance education and research by promoting the integration of knowledge.". Roland Piquepaille and Thomas Joseph offer commentary on their blogs.
/...
34 separate (common) sugars, + sugar-protein, sugar lipid combinations. Something tells me this guy has some stake in the acceptance of sugars in cell biology. By including the buildingblocks of DNA and RNA, but not their sequences and regulating factors, he skews the board drastically for his cause. Maybe he is right and there are some diseases dependent on attached sugar groups. But thus far, these are swamped by the number of confirmed diseases caused by mutations in the DNA, or infections by viruses, bacteria or protozoa.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
26 letters are enough to understand all english (and most of the other languages) literature?
Wonder what must be using the infinite amount of monkeys instead of typewriters to generate all possible mixes of those 68 molecules.
It has been discovered that there are only 3 elementary particles that are at the cause of ALL disease. We should be more focused on understanding protons, neutrons and electrons, then we could have ALL the answers, not just The Answer.
I mean, c'mon, there's only three of them, how difficult could it be?
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
68 molecules ought to be enough for everyone!!
It seems all cellular function is a result of interactions between protons, neutrons, and electrons in assorted arrangements.
This sounds a lot like the idea that you can derive all of electromagnetic physics from Maxwell's equations. It may be true, but don't try to do it during the test.
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
For computer viruses, you only need to understand 1's and 0's.
I understand your point. Once you have three particles, you are computationally screwed. So anything bigger than hydrogen is a bummer. Best to avoid particles altogether. String theory starts from the philosophical position that the universe is pointless, but vibrators make it endurable. I'm told it is a wonderland of elegant maths. Well, about 10^500 wonder-universes apparently. However, I object to strings being so pushy. What about the rest of the orchestra. Percussion got their star turn at the big bang, brass had that nice exponential shape period, but their bell point has been passed. Then the strings started sawing away, on a steady expansion that has gone on too long. 13 billion years and they haven't got to the Largo yet.
I think it is time the woodwinds had a chance. Some previous posts have been kind enough to mention the W and Z bassoons, but I think everything would be much simpler if the whole universe was modeled as an 11 dimensional pipe with lots of holes in the theory at regular intervals, and the ability to double the publication frequency by being a blowhard.
Of course, I'm off topic. But hey, the original picture really is into the big picture. It bundles all the sex steroids, male, female and the Vatican, all into a single group called sterol lipids. All of Hollywood just a fraction of one of the 68 types. Since it includes cholesterol, that's most of Washington. (The makers part, not the lipid shakers part.) So if a disease like the Washington-Hollywood Syndrome is so readily encompassed by the big picture, then it is only a small step to the multiverse, isn't it.
Somehow he seems to have missed water, which is crucial to all life processes as we know them.
rolandispants
Me lost me cookie at the disco.
And the human body is just eighty-nine cents worth of chemicals.
And you can explain everything with just ninety-two elements. Or just four, earth, air, water, and fire.
One of the most amazingly mind-opening things I ever read was a remark in a book by John R. Pierce, to the effect that Kirchoff's Laws are more general than Maxwell's Equations, because they can explain the behavior of all circuits, not just electronic circuits... but that Maxwell's Equations are more general than Kirchoff's Laws because they can explain the behavior of all electromagnetic systems, not just circuits.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Bzzzt! Point three is wrong.
To quote the paper in Nature:
The whole point of the author's paper is that we need to understand more than the molecules which make generic material if we are to understand disease. The significance of the number 68 is that it is greater than the number of molecules involved in generics.
only 68 molecular building blocks are used to construct these four fundamental components of cells
In other news, Microsoft is only interested in controlling two areas of digital computing: the zeros and the ones.
Sounds like a job for http://innocentive.com .
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
which tells you nothing of the content or the meaning.
That's how this game works right?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
What about porphyrins?
photosynthesis, oxygen transport, electron transfer, and so on.
I guess this is a case of "your favorite molecule sucks."
we can explain the economy by looking at one, five, ten, etc dollar bills.
ummmm... the person who wrote the UCSD news center headline badly muffed this. it's not anything like 68 molecules. The lipids listed encompass thousands or chemical species. The original article is clear enough that 68 enumerates building blocks, not molecules. But in trying for shorthand discussion of the topic, a gross oversimplification has occured. Whereas everything else on the figure is a molecule, the lipids are whole classes of molecules.