Natural selection seems to preserve the complex even if it has no specific usefulness

By portal-3

La selección natural parece preservar lo complejo aunque no tenga una utilidad específica

The classic explanation is that elaborate and complex structures must exist because they confer some functional benefit to the organism, so natural selection drives states of increasing complexity.

Clearly, in some cases complexity is adaptive, such as the evolution of the eye (complex eyes see better than simple ones). But at the molecular level, a new study has found that there are other simple mechanisms that drive the accumulation of complexity.

Complexity

He new study, conducted by researchers at the University of Chicago, suggests that elaborate protein structures accumulate over time, even when they serve no purpose, because a universal biochemical property and the genetic code force natural selection to conserve them.

Most of the proteins in our cells form specific complexes with other proteins, a process called multimerization. Many proteins, especially those with high molecular weights, have a quaternary structure, this means that they are made up of several polypeptide chains (from two to hundreds of them). Each of these chains is called a subunit, and the union of several subunits is what we have called a multimer, or multisubunit protein.

Pdb 1x9f EbiMultimer. This protein is a multimer formed by three polypeptide chains (protein subunits), therefore it is a trimer.

Like other types of complexity in biology, multimers are often thought to persist over evolutionary time because they confer some functional benefit favored by natural selection.

To prove it, the study analyzed the evolution of multimerization in a family of proteins called steroid hormone receptors, which assemble in pairs (called dimers). To do this, they used a technique called ancestral protein reconstruction, which allowed them to recreate ancient proteins in the laboratory and experimentally examine how they were affected by mutations that occurred hundreds of millions of years ago.

To their surprise, they found that the ancient proteins did not function any differently when assembled into a dimer than if they had never evolved to dimerize. There was nothing useful or beneficial in the formation of the complex. The explanation for why the dimeric form of the receptor has persisted for 450 million years turned out to be surprisingly simple, he explains. Georg Hochberg, one of the authors of the study:

These proteins gradually became addicted to their interaction, although there is nothing useful about them. The parts of the protein that form the interface where partners bind accumulated mutations that were tolerable after dimer evolution, but that would have been deleterious in the alone state. This made the protein completely dependent on the dimeric form, and it could no longer go back. Useless complexity took hold, essentially forever.

The researchers suggest, then, that simple biochemical, genetic and evolutionary principles make the entrenchment of molecular complexes inevitable. This mechanism, which operates on thousands of proteins for hundreds of millions of years, could drive the gradual accumulation of many useless complexes inside cells.


The news

Natural selection seems to preserve the complex even if it has no specific usefulness

was originally published in

Xataka Science

by
Sergio Parra

.

Read More

Yesterday, on Twitter, the hashtag #YoNoMeVacuno against COVID-19 was TT and that is a problem

By portal-3

Ayer, en Twitter, fue TT el hashtag #YoNoMeVacuno contra la COVID-19 y eso es un problema

In a homogeneous society, in which everyone has roughly the same background, religion, values, and goals, people will generally agree on what it means to be a good person and live a good life.

However, there is a whole constellation of discrepancies in the intensity of some values, even in their application; and above all there will be differences regarding data, objective information, because not everyone can or knows how to use reliable sources and ends up confused by infoxication. That explains, in part, that yesterday, on Twitter, the hashtag was TT #YoNoMeVacuno against COVID-19.

How to convince? Spoiler: you can't

The problem with excess information is that it is difficult to find the truth, but also that it is extremely easy to support any idea, theory or whim with mountains of data. As proof, a button of some of the images that were shared yesterday on Twitter under the hashtag #YoNoMeVacuno:

Eozpjovxeaex8ag

A key principle of liberalism is pluralism: the idea that different people, traditions, and beliefs not only can coexist together in the same society, but must also coexist together because society benefits from vibrant heterogeneity. However, hierarchies have been established regarding the sources of information to which we can turn: A study published in a peer-reviewed journal with a high impact index is not the same as a digital newspaper..

A pluralistic society fuels innovation and progress, where diverse people with unique life experiences develop and share ideas. If people remained in discrete, homogeneous communities, How many lives and ideas that would change the world would never have existed? The problem is that there are statements that, at all levels, including the epistemological level, are false.

Eo0di29xmaeyex8

They are statements, at least, so false that to be sustained (and respected), it is not enough to appeal to freedom of expression: the statements must be supported with the same epistemological strength as the idea that is being refuted: For example, if you say that vaccines are dangerous, provide scientific literature of the same level as that which states that vaccines are safe.

The opposite would be like asking all the passengers on an airplane, democratically, what kind of maneuver the pilot should perform to approach an impending storm.

Eo0fvw Xuaen5ff

When it comes to vaccines, we know scientifically that they are safe. Scientifically we know that they are useful. Scientifically we know that they will cause more benefits than harm. However, half of the population I would not be willing to get vaccinated against COVID-19 right now because he doesn't trust, because of fear, because of conspiracy theories, because they put the chis in it, or for whatever….

COVID deniers aside, in the percentage of the population with a negative response, it seems that the key word is not “vaccine” but “immediately.” Many trust science, but have doubts about the deadlines and, above all, fear of adverse reactions.

We could try to do pedagogy, try to inform people, even try to persuade them with the best possible rhetoric. However, if this doesn't work and we are in a hurry, if there is no time to philosophize because we have to get the vaccine and keep our mouths shut... what do we do to avoid falling headlong into a totalitarian state or to force people to take communion? with millstones? There is a more effective trick than forcing people (which sometimes leads to unexpected and counterproductive consequences): libertarian paternalism. You can learn more about him in the following video:


The news

Yesterday, on Twitter, the hashtag #YoNoMeVacuno against COVID-19 was TT and that is a problem

was originally published in

Xataka Science

by
Sergio Parra

.

Read More