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.'"
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.
Again, go back and look at the chart. He lists the 8 (not 5) nucleic acids involved in DNA and RNA:
Deoxyadenosine
Deoxycytidine,
Deoxyguanosine,
Deoxythymidine,
Adenosine,
Cytidine,
Guanosine,
Uridine
The first four nucleosides make up DNA, the last four RNA.
It's interesting in that this is a nice summary of information that we've known for a while that has never been presented in so succinct a format.
I had a table with that molecular breakdown in my biochem textbook. It was just black&white instead of colored, and it didn't look like it was made in Illustrator.
Way to go to him for... coloring... I guess. It's still pretty 1970-y information.
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.
You have to admit, it is an awfully pretty picture: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/graphics/images/2008/09-08MolecularBuildingBlocksBIG.jpg
And I thought the write-up was fine. TFS focused on the '68 molecules' thing, which is nothing new. TFA just mentions that his research includes the illustration, but the thrust seems to be encouraging a focus on lipid and glycan research for disease control and steering away from our current tunnel vision of genetic research. Seems like a reasonable and interesting opinion considering that the lion's share of funding is going to the genetic researchers.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.