|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Open-source biotechnology

Open-source biotechnology

Posted Apr 1, 2010 14:40 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
In reply to: Open-source biotechnology by mitchskin
Parent article: Open-source biotechnology

Quite so. Note that there *are* modular components in biology: things like
the Hox genes are conserved because so much other stuff depends on them
that if they change, the organism dies. But conserved components like this
are often little more than genetic switches, at most generating protein
that binds to regulatory regions of the DNA: the things that actually do
the *work* are rarely so conserved. (Sometimes they are, but even truly
ancient and insanely well-conserved things like hsp83 occasionally
mutate.)

More generally: conserved stuff has lots of stuff depending on it, so is
often hard to use in isolation; non-conserved stuff often depends upon
conserved stuff, so is often hard to use in isolation.


to post comments

Open-source biotechnology

Posted Apr 1, 2010 16:45 UTC (Thu) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] (1 responses)

I understand that programs created by genetic algorithms often have similar issues, as far as interdependency and nontrivial interactions between components go. Do you know if this is true?

Open-source biotechnology

Posted Apr 2, 2010 13:47 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Yes, and for similar reasons. But GA programs have tiny population sizes
and tiny runtimes compared to the sizes and runtimes which have brought us
present-day biology, so they have had less time to accumulate arcana.


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds