Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So took them a century and a half to work out proteins combine at random

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    So took them a century and a half to work out proteins combine at random

    And that natural selection doesn't really exist
    paper just out on nature, a whole lot of blah blah blah, basically just says proteins combine to form more complex structures at random, junk DNA is just that, a whole lot of Junk, and it's just happy chance if those more complex structures give way to helping an organism survive or improve some how


    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-3021-2


    A hydrophobic ratchet entrenches molecular complexes

    ​​​​​​

    Most proteins assemble into multisubunit complexes1. The persistence of these complexes across evolutionary time is usually explained as the result of natural selection for functional properties that depend on multimerization, such as intersubunit allostery or the capacity to do mechanical work2. In many complexes, however, multimerization does not enable any known function3. An alternative explanation is that multimers could become entrenched if substitutions accumulate that are neutral in multimers but deleterious in monomers; purifying selection would then prevent reversion to the unassembled form, even if assembly per se does not enhance biological function3,4,5,6,7. Here we show that a hydrophobic mutational ratchet systematically entrenches molecular complexes. By applying ancestral protein reconstruction and biochemical assays to the evolution of steroid hormone receptors, we show that an ancient hydrophobic interface, conserved for hundreds of millions of years, is entrenched because exposure of this interface to solvent reduces protein stability and causes aggregation, even though the interface makes no detectable contribution to function. Using structural bioinformatics, we show that a universal mutational propensity drives sites that are buried in multimeric interfaces to accumulate hydrophobic substitutions to levels that are not tolerated in monomers. In a database of hundreds of families of multimers, most show signatures of long-term hydrophobic entrenchment. It is therefore likely that many protein complexes persist because a simple ratchet-like mechanism entrenches them across evolutionary time, even when they are functionally gratuitous.


    #2
    Damn. Not sure what I just read. Lol

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Amerijuanican View Post
      Damn. Not sure what I just read. Lol
      A Million experts have been wrong about something for 160 years basically

      Comment


        #4
        Did you work it out faster then? : )

        That is interesting. I've never put a lot of thought into it but it's always nagged at me that there is something incomplete about the concept of natural selection. That still must be part of it though?? I can't see that that means natural selection doesn't exist. Just that it isn't infallible and doesn't explain everything.
        But the text is a bit beyond me so I'm not saying I know or understand, really.

        Comment


          #5
          I thought Natural Selection made good sense. So I kind of wonder about the hypothesis.

          Reminds me of a bodybuilding site I used to go to. I came back there a few years after my stroke. The general consensus had drastically changed (from 2007 to 2014)

          Used to be the quality and nutritional content of your diet mattered.
          Now the consensus is 3500 calories = one pound of weight.
          Doesn't matter if you eat those calories in junk food or "healthy" food. One pound id one pound.
          Seems it would matter if carbs, proteins, fat...

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Amerijuanican View Post
            I thought Natural Selection made good sense. So I kind of wonder about the hypothesis.

            Reminds me of a bodybuilding site I used to go to. I came back there a few years after my stroke. The general consensus had drastically changed (from 2007 to 2014)

            Used to be the quality and nutritional content of your diet mattered.
            Now the consensus is 3500 calories = one pound of weight.
            Doesn't matter if you eat those calories in junk food or "healthy" food. One pound id one pound.
            Seems it would matter if carbs, proteins, fat...
            it's hard to take a single site too seriously. could be they have an admin that doesn't allow people to disagree with his own opinions (i swear i'm not intentionally implying anything about any other forums we may be familiar with).

            personally i don't follow that stuff too closely, but i do work on the fringe of that industry and most of what i hear is still more about what you eat than how much. i've always been kind of an outsider in that i've always said it's some of both. i've definitely seen positive results while having terrible nutrition (i've built strength and muscle during periods when half my calories were coming from beer, and i've lost weight while eating nothing but fast food). but logic tells me that those results would have been twice as good if i was consuming the same number of calories of whatever it is i should have been consuming.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Undies View Post

              it's hard to take a single site too seriously. could be they have an admin that doesn't allow people to disagree with his own opinions (i swear i'm not intentionally implying anything about any other forums we may be familiar with).

              personally i don't follow that stuff too closely, but i do work on the fringe of that industry and most of what i hear is still more about what you eat than how much. i've always been kind of an outsider in that i've always said it's some of both. i've definitely seen positive results while having terrible nutrition (i've built strength and muscle during periods when half my calories were coming from beer, and i've lost weight while eating nothing but fast food). but logic tells me that those results would have been twice as good if i was consuming the same number of calories of whatever it is i should have been consuming.
              or, the immediate outcome might be pretty much the same.. but the outcome of what your life/health is like at age 50 or 60 is pretty different

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Vanilla Gorilla View Post

                A Million experts have been wrong about something for 160 years basically
                You really thrive at this shit right...? :P

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Din Djarin View Post

                  You really thrive at this shit right...? :P
                  Hell yeah, especially after 2020

                  Isn't the important question; how did so many people get it so wrong for so long?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    There is a lot of jargon there that I don't understand so I'm not going to say definitively the OP is wrong but I did read that Neutral Selection on the molecular level is compatible with Pheontypic evolution shaped by Natural Selection.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I don't think this paper seems to be saying that natural selection doesn't exist. It looks to me like they're saying that a lot of protein complexes assemble due to molecular forces. Assembling many proteins together gives a good chance for the hydrophobic (sections of the protein that don't "mix" with water) to clump together and thereby not be exposed to water.

                      Natural selection doesn't suggest that every single protein complex in our body has been assembled because of some driving force that gives the organism a net benefit. It's just that sometimes, certain phenotypic traits caused by genetics interacting with the environment promote the survival of certain organisms over others. No doubt there are many, many examples of complexes and functions which don't promote any particularly advantageous purpose for survival.

                      ​​​​​​​I haven't read the whole paper though, just the bit you posted here. Will maybe have a look at the full-length paper later.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X