Light-activated morphogenesis and behavior (1)
(click to enlarge)Summary: Optogenetics combines the power of genetics with light stimulation. We introduce you to the fundamentals of optogenetics, focussing on cutting-edge methods for controlling biological processes in cells and developing organisms…
Guided morphogenesis through optogenetic activation of Rho signalling during early Drosophila embryogenesis
Reported as: Optogenetics Drives Structural Changes During Embryonic Tissue Development
“We’ve uncoupled the link between the shape and function of the cell,” said research leader Stefano De Renzis. “This allows us to, for the first time, build tissues in certain shapes without affecting the cell’s expertise.”
Video: Optogenetics: Principles and approaches Published on 22 Nov 2017
Optogenetics combines the power of genetics with light stimulation. We introduce you to the fundamentals of optogenetics, focussing on cutting-edge methods for controlling biological processes in cells and developing organisms – known as non-neuronal optogenetics.
See also: Mother–child transmission of epigenetic information by tunable polymorphic imprinting
…EWAS studies have primarily focused on variations in DNA methylation levels without considering the essential role of imprinting in human development as we have done here.
Reported as: Visualizing ‘unfurling’ microtubule growth
“It’s a complete surprise that it’s such an ordered, concerted process,” Al-Bassam said.
The “ordered, concerted process of epigenetic imprinting was the focus of this 1996 review: From Fertilization to Adult Sexual Behavior (1996)
Serious scientists are not surprised to learn that others have linked energy-dependent changes from angstroms to ecosystems via light-activated microRNA biogenesis. All serious scientists realize the creation of energy was included first in Darwin’s “condition of life.” Only biologically uninformed theorists placed natural selection first. The theorists who tout mutation-driven evolution missed every aspect of biophysically constrained viral latency when they failed to place ecological adaptations first in the context of the physiology of reproduction.
See: A chemical defence against phage infection
They begin with the ridiculous premise that bacteria evolve despite biophysical constraints on the virus-driven degradation of messenger RNA that link the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction from food energy to ecological adaptations. Instead, they claim that bacterially produced secondary metabolites might represent the broad protection mechanism against the virus-driven degradation of messenger RNA caused by dsDNA phages.
Bacteria metabolize the food they eat, which is how they produce pheromones that biophysically constrain viral latency in the context of the physiology of reproduction. Food odors and pheromones have been linked from the physiology of reproduction to all biodiversity in species from microbes to humans.
See: Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction (2005)
See also: Module 2: Exploring Different Optogenetic Systems (20 minutes)
We will introduce you to the most-commonly used optogenetic systems, based on light-induced dimerisation and photocaging. We will explain and compare different systems including the cryptochrome, phytochrome and LOV domain-based systems to reveal their specific advantages and limitations.
See also: Module 3: Applications of Optogenetics at EMBL (15 minutes)
We will take you through the steps and practical considerations when setting up an optogenetic experiment in your lab. As a case study, we will use the novel optogenetic system that the De Renzis lab at EMBL have developed to control cellular contractility in living fly embryos.
Miscellaneous tweets (my antagonists know what’s coming):
As a rule of thumb, if a physicist is quoted with a comment on a colleagues’ work, calling it “interesting but speculative” it really means “He’s a friend of mine, and that idea is nonsense, but I won’t tell you” and you’ll never hear of it again.
Feynman addressed this in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roX2NXDUTsM Speculative theorists are examples of human idiocy because they use different measures for energy. See for comparison: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-visualizing-unfurling-microtubule-growth.html#jCp “It’s a complete surprise that it’s such an ordered, concerted process,”
Top-down causation starts from the creation of energy. There’s a model for that. Ask George FR Ellis about it. Also, if Feynman is still dead, see: Nutrient-dependent Pheromone-Controlled Ecological Adaptations: From Angstroms to Ecosystems https://t.co/5VkgY01ZXQ
For comparison see: “A chemical defence against phage infection” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0767-x They begin with the ridiculous premise that bacteria evolve despite biophysical constraints on the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction that link energy to ecological adaptations.
Bottom line: You are a biologically uninformed theorist if you have not linked the Virus-mediated archaeal hecatomb in the deep seafloor https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/10/e1600492.full from Schrodinger (1944) “What is life?” to Eukaryotic plankton diversity in the sunlit ocean https://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6237/1261605.abstract
Perhaps they just mean that it is interesting but speculative, and all that that implies — most speculative ideas turn out to be wrong, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t explore them; they could be revolutionary, and, even when wrong, often lead to further inspiration.
The astronomical cost (get it) of exploring ridiculous theories prevents serious scientists from making rapid progress due to lack of sufficient funding for works that link the creation of energy from angstroms to ecosystems via the physiology of reproduction in all living genera
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151216-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science/ “… argued that progress in fundamental physics very often comes from abandoning cherished prejudices (such as, perhaps, the assumption that the forces of nature must be unified).” — Sabine Hossenfelder. = Forget Schrodinger. Start with mutations.
See also: Light-activated morphogenesis and behavior (2)
