Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday October 21 2020, @08:54AM   Printer-friendly
from the liquid-crystals-on-display dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

DNA-protein interactions are extremely important in biology. For example, each human cell contains about 2 meters of DNA, but this is packaged into a space about 1 million times smaller. The information in this DNA allows the cell to copy itself. This extreme packaging is mainly accomplished in cells by wrapping the DNA around proteins. Thus, how DNA and proteins interact is of extreme interest to scientists trying to understand how biology organizes itself. New research by scientists at the Earth-Life Science Institute (ELSI) at Tokyo Institute of Technology and the Institut Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, ESPCI Paris, Université PSL suggests that the interactions of DNA and proteins have deep-seated propensities to form higher-ordered structures such as those that allow the extreme packaging of DNA in cells.

[...] In their work, Fraccia and Jia showed that double-stranded DNA and peptides can generate many different (Liquid Crystal) phases in a peculiar way: The LCs actually form in membraneless droplets called coacervates, where DNA and peptides are spontaneously co-assembled and ordered. This process brings DNA and peptides to very high concentrations comparable to that of a cell's nucleus, which is 100 to 1000 times greater than that of the diluted initial solution (which is the maximum concentration that can likely be achieved on early Earth). Thus, such spontaneous behavior can, in principle, favor the formation of the first cell-like structures on early Earth, which would take advantage of the ordered but fluid LC matrix in order to gain stability and functionality and to favor the growth and the evolution of primitive biomolecules.

[...] This new understanding of biopolymeric self-organization may also be important for understanding how life self-organized to become living in the first place. Understanding how primitive collections of molecules could have structured themselves into collectively behaving aggregates is a significant avenue of future research.

More information: Tommaso P. Fraccia et al, Liquid Crystal Coacervates Composed of Short Double-Stranded DNA and Cationic Peptides, ACS Nano (2020). DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.0c05083


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2020, @11:14AM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2020, @11:14AM (#1067114)

    Neither the submitter nor the editor grok what the fuck it's posting - just going thru the motion.

    • (Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Wednesday October 21 2020, @11:23AM (4 children)

      by khallow (3766) on Wednesday October 21 2020, @11:23AM (#1067117) Journal
      My laptop didn't grok what it displayed on its screen, but it still managed to replicate the information faithfully. Understanding is irrelevant to the transmission channel. It only matters if the endpoints understood. So in particular, did you understand the story?
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2020, @02:47PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2020, @02:47PM (#1067165)

        For example, each human cell contains about 2 meters of DNA, but this is packaged into a space about 1 million times smaller.

        They are comparing something with units of meters with cubic meters, it makes no sense. If you fold a normal piece of notebook paper in half 42 times it will be long enough to reach the moon.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 21 2020, @04:15PM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) on Wednesday October 21 2020, @04:15PM (#1067196) Journal

          They are comparing something with units of meters with cubic meters, it makes no sense.

          What doesn't make sense about it? A volume that is either spherical or a cube has standard length scales, such as diameter or side length associated with the volume.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2020, @08:06PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2020, @08:06PM (#1067280)

            Read the next sentence. Damn people are slow on here.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 21 2020, @09:28PM

              by khallow (3766) on Wednesday October 21 2020, @09:28PM (#1067300) Journal
              The next sentence was completely irrelevant.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 21 2020, @11:20AM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) on Wednesday October 21 2020, @11:20AM (#1067116) Journal
    A couple weeks back, an AC posted [soylentnews.org]:

    Personally, "anthropic principle" is the worst transgression in physics, in 20th Century no less. Why not go back shamanism. And these clowns are "distinguished" professors at Stanford, Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, etc.

    Well, here's another example of the anthropic principle. We could have life organized on all sorts of principles, but a principle that allows for complex, sentient life is what we're going to see.

    • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday October 21 2020, @11:49AM

      by hendrikboom (1125) on Wednesday October 21 2020, @11:49AM (#1067120) Homepage Journal

      a principle that allows for complex, sentient life is what we're going to see

      Because any anthropic principle that's compatible with observation (a requirement for all acceptable physical theories) is going to have to allow the complex, sentient life that we in fact do see.

      -- hendrik

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday October 21 2020, @01:48PM

      by HiThere (866) on Wednesday October 21 2020, @01:48PM (#1067147) Journal

      There's a difference between the weak anthropic principle and the strong anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle is almost guaranteed to be true. The strong one is just about certainly false, and certainly the reasoning behind it is false.

      If we see something, we've got to be in a position where seeing it is possible. That's a restatement of the weak anthropic principle. The strong one says (oversimplifying) that it wouldn't happen if we weren't looking.

      (If you're interested, search for a better statement somewhere else, because this is just a loose paraphrase.)

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
  • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday October 21 2020, @11:42AM (2 children)

    by hendrikboom (1125) on Wednesday October 21 2020, @11:42AM (#1067119) Homepage Journal

    2 meters of DNA, but this is packaged into a space about 1 million times smaller

    Comparing a length to a volume? And getting a unitless numerical ratio? Nonsense!

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday October 21 2020, @01:54PM

      by HiThere (866) on Wednesday October 21 2020, @01:54PM (#1067148) Journal

      Well, if you stretch the DNA out to 2 meters it's about one molecule thick, so you can derive a volume...though I don't think that's what was being done. You're right that it *is* a sloppy way to say whatever the author meant, and I suspect he was talking about the volume of liquid through which the DNA that was 2 meters long would normally be spread...but that's a guess.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2020, @10:13PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2020, @10:13PM (#1067315)

      ... 2 meters of DNA, but this is packaged into a [sphere with a diameter] about 1 million times smaller

      It's pretty unambiguous I'd say. As a physicist of course I can see it's technically inaccurate in its original form, but is it really necessary to get so hung up on the dimensionality that you miss the point of how incredible the underlying reality is?

(1)