NationStates Jolt Archive

Consider the following:

If the expression of every gene depends on a set of gene regulatory proteins, then the expression of these gene regulatory proteins must also depend on the expression of other gene regulatory proteins, and their expression must depend on the expression of still other gene regulatory proteins, and so on. Cells would therefore need an infinite number of genes, most of which would code for gene regulatory proteins.

How does the cell get by without having to achieve the impossible?

Can anybody see interesting theological parallels to this?

Can you dumb that down... oO

Can you dumb that down... oO
lol, maybe.

DNA, the "blue print" for our cells and tissues and all that good stuff, encodes proteins. those proteins are what go about performing important functions and making our cells work. some of those proteins control which genes are turned on and which are not; this is how all your cells can contain the same DNA, but not all be shaped the same or perform the same function. your skin cells have all the same DNA as your muscle cells, but proteins controlled which parts of the DNA got "turned on" and which did not, so your skin cells look and function differently compared to your muscle cells.

but those proteins controlling the genes were encoded by the DNA at one point, and THEIR expression was controlled by proteins just like all the other genes. so, it would seem, you have proteins controlling the expression of genes that encode proteins that control the expression of genes that encode proteins....and so on, and so on.

but that can't be right, because your cells would have to encode an infinite number of genes if that were the case. so there's got to be some other explanation.

i saw a parallel in this to the theological argument about the First Cause; if all things that exist must have a cause, then there would be an infinite regress. some people say that God is the First Cause, the one thing which exists but has no cause, and that without him the whole mess falls apart. however, if cells manage to escape the infinite regress of protein regulation, wouldn't that suggest that there is no need for a First Cause for the universe?

It is one gene that codes for one protein. Not any others.

A cell expresses or turns off production of a protein by stopping the supply of transcription factors. There is an exception for bacteria and other prokaryotes though who use repressors that attach to the operator of a gene preventing the RNA polymerase from creating the mRNA that codes for the protein.

When an embryo is developed the cells differentiate into specific specialized cells (e.g. skin cells) from embryotic stem cells.

Now that I am thinking of it... it makes more sense in prokaryotic organisms than it does in eukaryotes.

lol, maybe.

DNA, the "blue print" for our cells and tissues and all that good stuff, encodes proteins. those proteins are what go about performing important functions and making our cells work. some of those proteins control which genes are turned on and which are not; this is how all your cells can contain the same DNA, but not all be shaped the same or perform the same function. your skin cells have all the same DNA as your muscle cells, but proteins controlled which parts of the DNA got "turned on" and which did not, so your skin cells look and function differently compared to your muscle cells.

but those proteins controlling the genes were encoded by the DNA at one point, and THEIR expression was controlled by proteins just like all the other genes. so, it would seem, you have proteins controlling the expression of genes that encode proteins that control the expression of genes that encode proteins....and so on, and so on.

but that can't be right, because your cells would have to encode an infinite number of genes if that were the case. so there's got to be some other explanation.

i saw a parallel in this to the theological argument about the First Cause; if all things that exist must have a cause, then there would be an infinite regress. some people say that God is the First Cause, the one thing which exists but has no cause, and that without him the whole mess falls apart. however, if cells manage to escape the infinite regress of protein regulation, wouldn't that suggest that there is no need for a First Cause for the universe?

To really dumb it down do you think the "Which came first the chicken or the egg" may be applicable? :) Then to answer you say the question is loaded. The question itself is illogical there may be no need of a first cause.

Bottle, are you familar with telic recursion? I happen to think that "god" existed with the elements eternally with no first cause to matter or with "god"

god may simply be a "mind" or conciousness so to speak. Here is some info on telic recursion and reality theory.

http://megafoundation.org/Teleologic/main.htm

It is one gene that codes for one protein. Not any others.

A cell expresses or turns off production of a protein by stopping the supply of transcription factors.

transcription factors are proteins, which must themselves be encoded by DNA, and whose production must be regulated.

There is an exception for bacteria and other prokaryotes though who use repressors that attach to the operator of a gene preventing the RNA polymerase from creating the mRNA that codes for the protein.
these repressors are also proteins that must be encoded.

Wow i didn't think Science could prove the existence of G-d... If no-one can explain this, you can expect an Atheist Genetic Engineer, to magically appear, and attempt to prove you wrong. :)

Wow i didn't think Science could prove the existence of G-d... If no-one can explain this, you can expect an Atheist Genetic Engineer, to magically appear, and attempt to prove you wrong. :)
oh no, actually i was implying that this disproves the First Cause argument for God. i have a few notions of how the cell might escape this infinite regress, but they are all just off-the-cuff theories...i was hoping somebody else around here would know the actual answer, and might be able to clue me in.

To really dumb it down do you think the "Which came first the chicken or the egg" may be applicable? :) Then to answer you say the question is loaded. The question itself is illogical there may be no need of a first cause.

in the case of the universe, you may be right. in the case of the cell, you have to be wrong; SOMETHING has to be regulating the expression of genes, and we have found the first couple of "tiers" of regulation already. we have found transcription factors, and proteins that regulate them, and chromatin, and all that jazz.

my personal education isn't advanced enough in this field to know how far back we have figured it out, though. i think there probably is at least an accepted working theory about how the cell avoids the infinite regress, but i don't know what it is...anybody?


Bottle, are you familar with telic recursion? I happen to think that "god" existed with the elements eternally with no first cause to matter or with "god"

god may simply be a "mind" or conciousness so to speak. Here is some info on telic recursion and reality theory.

http://megafoundation.org/Teleologic/main.htm
i was not particularly familiar with telic recursion, but thanks to you i will now be avoiding my homework by reading up on it :). thanks!

in the case of the universe, you may be right. in the case of the cell, you have to be wrong; SOMETHING has to be regulating the expression of genes, and we have found the first couple of "tiers" of regulation already. we have found transcription factors, and proteins that regulate them, and chromatin, and all that jazz.

my personal education isn't advanced enough in this field to know how far back we have figured it out, though. i think there probably is at least an accepted working theory about how the cell avoids the infinite regress, but i don't know what it is...anybody?


i was not particularly familiar with telic recursion, but thanks to you i will now be avoiding my homework by reading up on it :). thanks!


You are welcome :fluffle: It really is a very interesting concept. just stay up a little extra to get your studies done. :)

One question- levi or wrangler?

It depends on what the gene is to be expressed in the pairs given in new young. If they are both the same then that is expressed, say a gene BB from the father and BB from the mother, then BB would be the expression. If one was BB and the other Bb, then 2 in four young would be Bb. Therefore the next young set of young would depend on what gene, the B or the b from the second generation is given to them. When sperm and egg combine they form a cell that then has paired genes. Dominant genes are the ones expressed, and these genes are gotten from both parents, so they don't change too much, because they were caused by cell reproduction from the parent. The cell then splits many many times and eventually specialized tissues are formed. Etc. etc. until the new young is born. The reason why traits change and species evolve is because no two DNA strands are exactly the same, so things change and species evolve.

One question- levi or wrangler?
let's go with Lee, just to shake things up.

Consider the following:

If the expression of every gene depends on a set of gene regulatory proteins, then the expression of these gene regulatory proteins must also depend on the expression of other gene regulatory proteins, and their expression must depend on the expression of still other gene regulatory proteins, and so on. Cells would therefore need an infinite number of genes, most of which would code for gene regulatory proteins.

How does the cell get by without having to achieve the impossible?

Can anybody see interesting theological parallels to this?
This seems like a problem to the casual student of genetics, but actually, the regulatory systems of gene expression are extremely efficient.
Simply put, some genes are consitutively expressed, that is, they are continuously transcribed and translated into proteins, with no regulation.

Other genes, that are only needed at certain times have either allosteric regulation (inhibitors that block the transcription enzymes) or promoters, that are only activated/de-activated when specific stimuli indicate conditions that require that product of that gene to be expressed.

There is definately a finite number of regulators needed-for example, in the lac operon, a cluster of genes that produces enzymes for the metabolism of the sugar lactose, it is the presence of the (inorganic) lactose molecule that disables the inhibitor that usuallly remains bound to the DNA. The regulation is stimulated by an inorganic indicator, not an endless string of other regulators.

Comet plus Earth in big fast collision = amino acids. Freaky huh?
We're aliens!

That's only one, (rather weak) theory. Chemical evolution (which I can't be bothered to explain) is just as plausible and seems more likely.

This seems like a problem to the casual student of genetics, but actually, the regulatory systems of gene expression are extremely efficient.
Simply put, some genes are consitutively expressed, that is, they are continuously transcribed and translated into proteins, with no regulation.

Other genes, that are only needed at certain times have either allosteric regulation (inhibitors that block the transcription enzymes) or promoters, that are only activated/de-activated when specific stimuli indicate conditions that require that product of that gene to be expressed.

There is definately a finite number of regulators needed-for example, in the lac operon, a cluster of genes that produces enzymes for the metabolism of the sugar lactose, it is the presence of the (inorganic) lactose molecule that disables the inhibitor that usuallly remains bound to the DNA. The regulation is stimulated by an inorganic indicator, not an endless string of other regulators.

ahhh, very interesting. i was thinking along those lines, but you clearly know a bit more about this stuff than i do. thanks for your response!

The solution to your paradox is simple. The answer is orgone. :D

Some genes are activated by substances brought into the body and not by other gene products. Some are switched on by processes going on in the mother during gestation or the instance when sperm meets egg thanks to chemical action. Then one action begets another action until the chain reaction creates a dividing cell and develops into a living breathing eating organism whose genes regulate themselves nicely.

If the expression of every gene depends on a set of gene regulatory proteins, then the expression of these gene regulatory proteins must also depend on the expression of other gene regulatory proteins, and their expression must depend on the expression of still other gene regulatory proteins, and so on. Cells would therefore need an infinite number of genes, most of which would code for gene regulatory proteins.
The logical problem you have there is that you assume perfection. Genes are NOT perfectly regulated. Just think of the hereditary diseases such as rheumatism, where the regulation of the immune system fails and it starts killing human cells, too.

Can anybody see interesting theological parallels to this?
You're redressing the "chicken and egg" problem or some problem very much like it. It's not working: amino acids can be produced naturally. Especially animal cells, like human cells (unlike some of the more complex bacterial cells) are just micelles, or soap bubbles, with proteins inside.