In late July, several dozen physicists with an interest in biology gathered at the Colorado mountain resort of Snowmass for a birthday celebration. Hans Frauenfelder, a physicist who began studying proteins decades ago, turned 80 this year. But unofficially, the physicists were celebrating something else — a growing feeling that their discipline's mindset will be crucial to reaping the harvest of biology's postgenomic era.
Of course, physics and its techniques have played a significant role in biology for decades. X-ray crystallography and nuclear magnetic resonance are essential tools for structural biologists. Biophysicists study everything from the forces exerted by molecular motors to the energetics of enzyme catalysis. And electrophysiologists need a working knowledge of the Nernst equation, which describes the movement of ions across cell membranes.
Many of the founders of molecular biology were also originally physicists. But in the 50 years since people such as Max Delbrück and Francis Crick created the field, it has abandoned its roots. Physics is theory-driven; molecular biology has become an empirical and descriptive science. Physics uses mathematics to represent the laws of nature; molecular biology relies on words and diagrams to describe the functions of living things. The essence of physics is to simplify, whereas molecular biology strives to tease out the smallest details. To cynics, the latter has become an exercise in molecular stamp-collecting, slotting new components and interactions into ever more complex biochemical pathways.
The two cultures might have continued to drift apart, were it not for the revolution in genomics. But thanks to a proliferation of high-throughput techniques, molecular biologists now find themselves wading through more DNA sequences and profiles of gene expression and protein production than they know what to do with. It may be time to take a step back from the details and try to see the big picture.
"Biology today is where physics was at the beginning of the twentieth century," observes José Onuchic, who is the co-director of the new Center for Theoretical Biological Physics (CTBP) at the University of California, San Diego. "It is faced with a lot of facts that need an explanation."
Comments
Combining Physics and Biology
April 11, 2006 by Richard G. Lanzara, 3 years 12 weeks ago
Comment id: 1544
You mention that "It may be time to take a step back from the details and try to see the big picture." See one attempt to understand the physicochemical basis for receptor activation at http://www.bio-balance.com/Ref.htm. Physicists may be particularly interested in the Weber's law article were a fundamental equation of equilibrium is derived and related to the responses of biological receptors through successive papers.
1. New Update - Molecular dynamics of a biophysical model for beta-2-adrenergic and G protein-coupled receptor activation J. Mol. Graphics Modell. in press.
2. Optimal Agonist/Antagonist Combinations Maintain Receptor Response by Preventing Rapid Beta-1 adrenergic Receptor Desensitization Intl. J. Pharmacol., 1(2): 122-131, 2005. pdf.
3. Activation of G Protein-Coupled Receptors Entails Cysteine Modulation of Agonist Binding, J. Molecular Structure (Theochem), 430/1-3: 57-71 (1998). pdf .
4. Weber's Law Modeled by the Mathematical Description of a Beam Balance, Mathematical Biosciences 122: 89-94 (1994). pdf .
-Richard G. Lanzara
Update on Physics Meets Biology
December 21, 2007 by Richard G. Lanzara, 1 year 28 weeks ago
Comment id: 26550
Just an update on Physics meets Biology. The paper - "Molecular dynamics of a biophysical model for beta-2-adrenergic and G protein-coupled receptor activation" can now be seen at http://www.bio-balance.com/JMGM_article.pdf. Pictures of the receptor in two states are at http://www.bio-balance.com/Receptor2.htm and http://www.bio-balance.com/Receptor1.htm. Truly an interesting subject!
This is an interesting subject that should generate discussion
January 1, 2008 by Richard G. Lanzara, 1 year 26 weeks ago
Comment id: 26719
Physics and its interface with biology is a very interesting topic (see http://www.bio-balance.com/Anemone.pdf). The fact that there are still relatively simple systems that can teach us a great deal about the physical, chemical and biological world is truly marvelous! (for Refs see - http://www.bio-balance.com/Ref.htm)
Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology
July 31, 2008 by Anonymous, 48 weeks 2 days ago
Comment id: 31315
There occasionally occurs a paradigm shift in the way that particular problems are recognized and solved. It often takes years and even decades before these new ideas are incorporated into the prevailing scientific thought. One reasone for this may be because of the inability to effectively communicate those ideas to the rest of the world. When such paradigm shifts take hold and begin to grow, there's a critical point where the idea is tested by suitable independent experimental scientists. These are often the unsung heroes of newer scientific ideas and technologies breaking through to recognition and eventual acceptance. So far the links between physics and biology seem rather esoteric and remote, yet we all accept that we are physical beings subjected to the same physical laws that govern the universe around us. So why haven’t we made greater progress toward a more direct connection to our underlying physical relationship with the universe? Perhaps we have a resistance to such knowledge. We may not really want to know these things unless we can be more mentally and spiritually prepared to accept them. Not everyone may be able to accept the direct scientific evidence for these connections and not every mind is prepared to understand how these connections occur, but for those who wish to explore these connections consider the following link that may change the way that you view how physics meets biology - http://ombamltine.blogspot.com/2008/05/welcome.html