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.'"

Comments

Overkill

[Tubal-Cain]

You should only need 42.

Are 2 Bits Enough To Understand Computers?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Obvious and boring

[Cougem]

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.

Re:Obvious and boring

[OG]

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?

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.

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

See below.

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.

You either didn't read or understand the article correctly (and I suggest reading the original article in Nature Cell Biology; it's a very quick, high-level piece. As to your point, the molecules that compose RNA and DNA are only 8 of the building blocks he lists. The 20 amino acides that compose proteins (and the amino acids themselves are not encoded by DNA) make up another subgroup. Then you have your glycans and lipids as the other two main subgroups, again not encoded by DNA.

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.

See above.

The whole point of Marth's paper is that there has been too much focus on genes and proteins as the origins of disease, and that the research into lipids and glycans that has been conducted hasn't been integrated well enough into the genetic research.

To that end, he put together a very nice chart listing the major constituents of a cell divided into four major groups, along with diagrams of where those molecules are found in the cell. His article is more of a commentary piece about how more integrative work needs to be done with a nice chart on how these pieces fit together. It's one I'll probably print out and hang on the wall, because I appreciate that it's simple and still conveys quite a bit of information.

Re:woo

[pesho]

117?! This is an overkill. I can boil them down to 3 subatomic particles - electron, proton and neutron. Physicists, feel free to pitch in. Lets get to the bottom of these pesky diseases.

Who submitted it? (was: Re:Obvious and boring)

[siglercm]

How did this make slashdot?

It was submitted by the Slashdot God of all Science Media, Roland Piquepaille, that's how.

In other misrepresentations...

[Arthur Grumbine]

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?