Slashdot Mirror
Computer-Designed Proteins Recognize and Bind Small Molecules
vinces99 writes "Computer-designed proteins that can recognize and interact with small biological molecules are now a reality. Scientists have succeeded in creating a protein molecule that can be programmed to unite with three different steroids. The achievement could have far wider ranging applications in medicine and other fields, according to the Protein Design Institute at the University of Washington. 'This is a major step toward building proteins for use as biosensors or molecular sponges, or in synthetic biology — giving organisms new tools to perform a task,' said one of the lead researchers, Christine E. Tinberg, a UW postdoctoral fellow in biochemistry."
"Computer-designed proteins that can recognize and interact with small biological molecules are now a reality." very much reminds me of alpha-Amanitin, the super-potent poison of the death cap responsible for the vast majority of mushroom related deaths.
In fact, many if not most potent poisons are of the "binds much stronger to some vitally important molecules/enzymes than what should go there" kind.
It's but a minuscule tool in a field of science we know almost nothing about.
Nothing but knowledge stops us from creating an arbitrary living creature to complete a task. In bio-engineering there's no lack of base materials, everything's done from stuff we use for food. There are also no hard limits, no speed of light that stops astronomers from studying the space; no uncertainty and size limits that stops us from verifying string theory.
I don't see this as a breakthrough. Breakthroughs are for sciences with hard walls to break. Bio-engineering is more like a large field we've never been into.
Let's hope they can apply this technique to something valuable PR-wise (medicine or nutrition seem the most obvious), so they are able to secure funding to keep going.
Really, proteins can recognize small biological molecules? Here I thought that proteins, like other molecules would react with other molecules in a bio-chemical reaction, but to find out that they can actually recognize other molecules is really amazing!
Proteins can recognize biological molecules as much as people can recognize other people. Or do you think there's anything but biochemical reactions involved.
I don't think there's an established limit of complexity of the biochemical reactions where we're supposed to attribute or stop attributing meaning to what's no more than a chemical inevitable consequence.
The speed of light does not stop astronomers from studying space. Actually, we'd know much less about our universe if light did not have that speed limit. It functions as a sort of time machine, or at least a window back in time, that we wouldn't otherwise have that lets us see the universe as it was early in it's history. Things like the red shift of faraway galaxies can be correlated with distance and provide a sense of scale that would otherwise be much more difficult to get. The fact that light has a finite speed is a very good thing for astronomy.
it's excellent that we are beginning to understand and build elementary biology and i want to see it go further because of all the good it can do. however, there's a "with great power comes great responsibility" aspect to all of this. we are getting ever closer to the point where this technology will be used to build the newest and deadliest weapon yet. a nuke can wipe out a large chunk of land with an explosion but a devious virus can kill an entire population with a cough.
you might be thinking this post is FUD but there is no uncertainty or doubt that when you invent a new technology, it will (foolishly) be used to make new and deadlier tools of war.
we live in interesting times.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Obviously it wasn't obvious, or Dcnjoe60 wouldn't have made that comment!
It was obvious, however, if I want metaphorical descriptions, I can go to the regular press. But on a site that is supposed to cater to educated people (nerds per the masthead), why not use a more technical description instead of one you might find in USA Today or some other media directed to a 6th grade education? Even the word target is much more accurate than recognize.
Time and time again, we discuss on /. the dumbing down of society, particularly in the areas of science and technology. It's just surprising to see /. contributing to that process by using metaphorical descriptions to summarize a technical article.
Proteins can recognize biological molecules as much as people can recognize other people. Or do you think there's anything but biochemical reactions involved.
Nonsense and bollocks. Suggesting that proteins recognize biological molecules is like suggesting that Duplo blocks recognize Lego bricks or that baking soda recognizes vinegar.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
But on a site that is supposed to cater to educated people (nerds per the masthead), why not use a more technical description instead of one you might find in USA Today or some other media directed to a 6th grade education? Even the word target is much more accurate than recognize.
The term "recognize" is used all the time in the technical literature when discussing how proteins bind to, well, pretty much anything - DNA, small molecules, or other proteins. In fact, the abstract for the actual Nature article uses the phrase "molecular recognition". You may find this unacceptably colloquial, but it's common usage in the field at this point.
(Yes, I am a biochemist.)
Breakthroughs are for sciences with hard walls to break.
The protein folding problem has long been one of those hard walls. It was first identified as a problem 50 years ago.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
A protein recognizes its binding partners like a lock recognizes its key, or like your computer recognizes your password. Is the language a bit anthropomorphic? Yes. But everyone in biology knows what is meant. Your pedantry is useless and annoying.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Oh, I should also add that everything that happens in your brain is a "simple chemical process". That includes recognition, and cognition, for that matter.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
(Yes, I am a biochemist.)
Well, then, obviously you're just part of the arrogant, insular, ivory-tower scientific priesthood, using fancy jargon to baffle and mislead people instead of terms acceptable to $RANDOM_SLASHDOT_USER! Probably to protect your revenue stream from payrolled articles and wasteful government grants, since as a scientist you spend a significant portion of your day rolling around naked on piles of money. You ivory-tower eggheads with your fancy degrees instead of real-world experience and common sense, I tell you ...
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
since as a scientist you spend a significant portion of your day rolling around naked on piles of money
No, depending on whom you ask, I'm actually much too busy either fabricating data to support totalitarian socialist government policies, or developing new poisons for the pharmaceutical industry to exploit at public expense. Besides, we already blew most of our grant money on booze and gambling at a "conference" in Vegas last year.