Narcissistic egomaniacal and deadly denial of autophagy

Summary: Viral latency is food energy-dependent and pheromone-controlled in the context of autophagy, which protects organisms from the virus-driven degradation of messenger RNA.

Workshop on Quantum Effects in Biological Systemshas established itself as an outstanding stage to present the research in the intersection of physics, chemistry and biology. This field has… established excitons in biology as the “must-talk-language” when describing the quantum effects in biological light-harvesting systems.

Pseudoscientists refuse to speak the “must-talk language” of biological light-harvesting systems. When was the last time you heard a theorist mention excitons?

Light-harvesting systems link the creation of the sun’s anti-entropic virucidal energy (Schrodinger’s negentropy, 1944 ) from the creation of food energy to the physiology of pheromone-controlled reproduction in all living genera via autophagy, which protects all organized genomes from virus-driven entropy.

See: Structural diversity of supercoiled DNA

…DNA supercoiling strongly affects DNA metabolism. Despite its importance, however, much about supercoiled DNA (positively supercoiled DNA, in particular) remains unknown. Here we use electron cryo-tomography together with biochemical analyses to investigate structures of individual purified DNA minicircle topoisomers with defined degrees of supercoiling. Our results reveal that each topoisomer, negative or positive, adopts a unique and surprisingly wide distribution of three-dimensional conformations. Moreover, we uncover striking differences in how the topoisomers handle torsional stress. As negative supercoiling increases, bases are increasingly exposed. Beyond a sharp supercoiling threshold, we also detect exposed bases in positively supercoiled DNA. Molecular dynamics simulations independently confirm the conformational heterogeneity and provide atomistic insight into the flexibility of supercoiled DNA. Our integrated approach reveals the three-dimensional structures of DNA that are essential for its function.

They linked energy-dependent changes in base pairs from supercoiled DNA to all biodiversity via cryo-ET, which helped to support their atomistic insight.

See for comparison: Structural Dynamics and Mechanochemical Coupling in DNA Gyrase

Gyrase… harnesses the free energy of ATP hydrolysis to perform mechanical work on DNA. The enzyme specifically introduces negative supercoiling in a process that must coordinate fuel consumption with DNA cleavage and religation and with numerous conformational changes in both the protein and DNA components of a large nucleoprotein complex.

Simply put, gyrase introduces the pathology of virus-driven negative supercoiling. Discussion with one of the co-authors, namely A.C. Parente, led me to make this claim in frustration:

No one who places “Plant Energy Biology” into the context of “Evolutionary Biology” will understand my model of the Mechanisms and Functional Diversity of Macromolecular Remodeling by ATP-Dependent Motors [autophagy]. It starts with the creation of energy and explains how virus-driven energy theft is linked to all pathology via conserved molecular mechanisms in species from microbes to humans. The mechanisms link energy-dependent changes in angstroms to ecosystems via what is known about autophagy. The energy is not destroyed. Viruses use it to replicate.

Parente, and other like her, have tried to present their findings in the context of evolution, which is why their experimental evidence makes no sense to serious scientists. Nothing except natural selection for energy-dependent codon optimality can link the energy-dependent physiology of pheromone-controlled reproduction from feedback loops to autophagy, which biophysically constrains viral latency.  Simply put, viral latency is food energy-dependent and pheromone-controlled.

Serious scientists have detailed that fact since 1994. See: [Pheromonal regulation of genetic processes: research on the house mouse (Mus musculus L.)]

A study of the influence of pheromone stressor(s) on proliferating germ and somatic cells was performed on laboratory lines of house mouse in the context of the physiological hypothesis of mutation process, proposed by M.E. Lobashev in 1947. Data from experiments are presented, and results obtained during last 10-15 years are discussed. The adaptive role of cytogenetic and other observed pheromonal effects is considered. The possible existence of interorganism systems of genetic regulation is discussed, the search for and study of which may help in more complete understanding of the regularities of functioning of genetic material.

See also: Combinatorial effects of odorants on mouse behavior

In summary, our findings indicate that the innate effect of an odorant on behavior can be context-dependent and subject to modification by other odorants. It is conceivable that signals derived from a single receptor can elicit innate behavioral attraction or aversion and involve hard-wired neural circuits. However, our studies indicate that these behavioral responses can be modulated by sensory inputs from other receptors via the interactions of signals derived from the different receptors within the brain. In short, innate behavioral output can be influenced by interactions within the brain among signals derived from different receptors in the nose.

See also my refutation of neo-Darwinian pseudoscientific nonsense: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model

See for comparison, on 7/25/13, psychiatrist Jay R. Feierman wrote:

“Variation is not nutrient availability and the something that is doing the selecting is not the individual organism. A feature of an educated person is to realize what they do not know. Sadly, you don’t know that you have an incorrect understanding [of] Darwinian biological evolution.”

In my opinion, Jay R. Feierman goes far beyond the claims of other narcissistic egomaniacs, like Parente, who think they can use evolution as an explanation for all biophysically constrained biodiversity. Other egomaniacs also attempt to beat serious scientists into submission with ridiculous claims that the serious scientists do not understand Darwinian biological evolution. But see the 2009 and 2017 retractions of Jack Szostak’s claims about the evolution of amino acids. Please use the retractions to help stop the pseudoscientific nonsense touted by biologically uninformed theorists.

I am a medical laboratory scientist who knows that Darwin started with his food energy-dependent “conditions of life.” He presciently linked natural selection for energy-dependent codon optimality from the “conditions of life” to the physiology of pheromone-controlled reproduction and all biodiversity in every species he examined. He could have done no better if he knew anything about genetics and focused on one model organism of fixed amino acid substitutions, but that fact has changed.

See for example: Associative Mechanisms Allow for Social Learning and Cultural Transmission of String Pulling in an Insect