 |
| Fig. 1 Close up of a cell's brain? |
I. Background
I recently read "The Bacterial Chromosome: A Physical Biologist's Apology. A Perspective." (Paper One) and "Nuclear speed and cycle length co -vary with local density during syncytial blastoderm formation in a cricket" (Paper Two).
Today I am ready for another post here on Dredd Blog.
One reason for that is that Paper One featured E. Coli genome and Paper Two featured a cricket genome; furthermore, since according to the authors those blasted syncytial blastoderm dynamics are here because "physics and biology have worked together during the course of evolution" (Paper One) which is whimsical, metaphorical, and teleological "playing with dolls" as when a Mars rover "made friends with a pet rock" (The Doll As Metaphor - 8).
Evidently the pet rock and the rover overcame the time-warp between them with a time travel trip so "working together" emerged in a syncytial-time-blasted episode of "physicists will continue to enter biology until one day the boundary between the two disciplines disappears."
Anybody read Shakespeare's 2087 time-travel book "working together in the boundary"? ("time keeps on slippin' into the future" ... see video below).
It's a perfect time, then, to fuse Small Brains Considered, 2, 3, 4, 5 with Quantum Biology, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, because "physics and biology" are not living things, and genomes are made of atoms, i.e., inanimate objects that are not alive.
II. Appendices
There is only one appendix to today's post (Appendix QB-12), which contains counts of the number of amino acids coded for and featured in a previous post's appendices (Small Brains Considered - 5).
Those appendices: A, B, C, D, and E (The count tables are linked to those appendices).
They featured, among other things, information concerning a cricket genome, an E.Coli genome, a human chromosome, and several others, for the purpose of showing the amino acid, codon, and atomic similarities.
III. Discussion
For starters, notice that the human chromosome (Appendix A) shows counts of hundreds of thousands, while the other counts (non-human) are for the most part less than one thousand (Appendix QB-12).
However, consider this:
"There's about a trillion human cells that make each one of us who we are and able to do all the things that we do. But you have 10 trillion bacterial cells in you or on you at any moment in your life. So, 10 times more bacterial cells than human cells on a human being. And, of course, it's the DNA that counts, so here's all the A, T, Gs and Cs that make up your genetic code and give you all your charming characteristics. You have about 30,000 genes. Well, it turns out you have 100 times more bacterial genes playing a role in you or on you all of your life. So at the best, you're 10 percent human; more likely, about one percent human, depending on which of these metrics you like. I know you think of yourself as human beings, but I think of you as 90 or 99 percent bacterial. (Laughter) And these bacteria are not passive riders. These are incredibly important; they keep us alive. They cover us in an invisible body armor that keeps environmental insults out so that we stay healthy. They digest our food, they make our vitamins, they actually educate your immune system to keep bad microbes out. So they do all these amazing things that help us and are vital for keeping us alive, and they never get any press for that. But they get a lot of press because they do a lot of terrible things as well. So there's all kinds of bacteria on the earth that have no business being in you or on you at any time, and if they are, they make you incredibly sick."
(Small Brains Considered - 4, transcript excerpt/quote from video of Dr. Bassler, emphasis added). This is important for researchers to consider.
I have complained about microbiologists and virologists use "host" when the appropriate term is "epi-host" because most ACGT and U nucleotides are contained in a microbe host (eukaryotes/prokaryotes; only they can replicate viruses).
Non-microbial cells (human/animal/plant) do orders of magnitude less replication, if any, because for one thing those cells are less plentiful as Dr. Bassler points out in the quote above.
Furthermore, a virologist says it is erroneous not to know what virus host (what microbe) a virus was extracted from for sequencing its genome:
"In principle, a plaque assay is remarkably simple: prepare a dilution series of a phage lysate, mix dilutions well with aliquots of a growing culture of their host bacteria ... plaque assays for counting phages do not work if you have − or suspect you have − lots of phages in a sample but the host bacteria are difficult or impossible to culture on plates, or − even worse − not known."
(Of Terms in Biology: The Polony Method, emphasis added). Most virology papers and media news never mention the host bacterium, instead they do the worst case scenario which is to only mention the "epi-host" (human, cow, chicken, bat, ect.) which the actual host microbe is in.
IV. Closing Comments
Virology blog’s take on it:
“Viruses are not living things. Viruses are complicated assemblies of molecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and carbohydrates, but on their own they can do nothing until they enter a living cell. Without cells, viruses would not be able to multiply. Therefore, viruses are not living things … Viruses don’t actually ‘do’ anything.”
(Virology 101; Virology Blog, 2004). That is my understanding as well, which is why I have criticized the use of metaphor, teleology, and doll's play.
Especially when discussing microbes and viruses (Small Brains Considered, 2, 3, 4, 5; The Doll As Metaphor, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).
The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.
Time keeps on slippin' into the tik tok:
Biology stuck in the middle with Physics:
