Clearly, form follows function, for functional elements have definite form but, we may not infer function from form.
The question I have is, how is the limitation on the inference of function affected by the recognition that form is imposed by functional elements?
My suspicion is that form is generally ignored, and that has implications for understanding of protein-protein interaction analysis, where form likely is not ignored.
How is it that contemporary science handles the form - function relationship?
Hi William, in protein chemistry we talk about protein structure-function.
The word "form" is meaningless because it is an abstract concept that can't be measured.
Protein structures have 3 distinct components. Primary structure is the protein amino acid sequence. Secondary structure is how these amino acids fold into distinct patterns. Tertiary structure is how these structural patterns interact with each other in 3D. All of these structures are measurable and are not abstract.
Protein structure-function relationships are central to understanding how they work.
I am quite familiar with the primary, secondary, tertiary, and even quaternary structure of poly-peptides; the ribosome exhibits such quaternary structure. I have also devoted much time to the protein folding problem; it is the logical inverse of the traveling salesman problem. Yet, it is absolutely true that not all poly-peptide sequences, tertiary or quaternary, yield three dimensional structures that catalyse poly-peptide sequences from nucleic acid sequences and free amino acid monomers. Only a subset of all possible conformations catalyse this reaction, and yet, of all these possible catalysing poly-peptides, only a small portion of these have manipulations to the active site. Finally, only a small percentage of active site manipulations leave the site active. So, to some crude approximation at least, function is a derivative of form.
As to form being unspecifiable, it at least has volume and conformation.
Huh?
Sorry, I'm not fluent in nonsense. Good luck and goodbye.
One way to think about this issue is to consider mathematical sets. There are two sets that are of concern with respect to the originally posed question. One set is the set of all possible 'forms' and the other set is the set of all possible 'functions.' By disjoint interaction (differences) these two sets form a variety of subsets. This is to say, it is a reasonable claim that not all functions occur in all forms. Instead, functions crossed with forms will always construct a proper subset of the union of form and function.
I should add, many of his contemporary researchers thought Boltzman to be insane. Not any more.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Filing