The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2014
nobelprize.org
nobelprize.org
These technologies create an intuitive understanding (though we obviously knew it before) that cells and all living things are self-organized reaction-diffusion systems - which should lead to a paradigm shift in thinking about biology, though that hasn't really happened yet.
Sidenote: it's interesting that so many Nobel Prizes in Chemistry in the last decade or so went to quintessential biological discoveries (same with Medicine). Alfred Nobel should have included a prize for biology as well, I guess. Though in the end, borders between disciplines are fluid anyway.
Sounds intriguing. Can you explain more what you mean?
I have a good physics background and what is most supprising to me is how alive cells are. I initially came into the bio field just as the OP talks about, with the idea that cells are just tiny chemistry machines that are very complicated. I figured that eventually, we'd understand the cell from top to bottom give or take a century. Now.... not so much. Cells, especially eukaryotes like us and yeast, are just so alive to me. They do weird things and act on their own. You would think that with enough constraints in the inputs you would be able to very precisely predict what any one cell would do. Nope. They go off and do their own thing, replicate in some strange way, find some food source you never thought they could digest, eat each other, have sex in some novel way. And it's not just that you are not constraining the system enough either, or that the system is inherently chaotic and you see improbable events because of that. They really are alive and want to stay that way. I know this is not a good explanation, and that real science still has a lot to say about it. But with my background I felt the way OP did, that it was all overlapping Gaussian curves and gradients in N-space that makes it look alive. But now, having seen it up close and watched it all, now I am pretty certain that life is different somehow.
To be more specific: Self Organization Cells and organisms have incredibly detailed structures or spatial and temporal patterns on time and space scales far beyond typical biochemical reaction rates and the sizes of the molecules. These patterns are not created by someone or something; they emerge from the localized dynamic interplay between many same and different molecules - self organization. In a certain sense the cell and any organism is a dynamical system that self-organizes into intricate patterns, something that is mostly only appreciated by physicists working in biology, rarely by biologists themselves. This has consequences that are often still not appreciated. An example (hope I recall it all correctly, it's been a few years): I was working on so-called Src-family protein kinases (SFKs), proteins that phosphorylate other proteins and thereby change their conformation so that they themselves become activated. SFKs play a huge role in many different signal transduction pathways and therefore in many different diseases. Because of their importancy they are regulated/controlled on many different levels. One of them is that they are self-inhibiting: they bind intramolecularly to a phosphate group and thereby block its own activity. To become activated, they need to be dephosphorylated by some phosphatase and they need to be phosphorylated at another position by another SFK intermolecularly. In the standard biological treatment, it's all pretty simple: phosphatase dephosphorylates, SFK phosphorylates - done. However, as SFKs bind themselves, they block access to the site that the phosphatase wants to dephosphorylate - why could this system then be responsive to any changes, why doesn't it simply stay in this state forever?
Dynamics. SFKs most likely (that was more my hypothesis at that time, don't know what the situation is like now) constantly unbind and bind its inhibiting phosphate at a low rate. In its unbound state, the phosphatase can access the phosphate. As the active SFK in turn activates its own phosphatase (a feedback loop), more phosphatases are around, dephosphorylating more SFKs in their unbound conformation, leading to a mostly active population of SFKs. Now when you incorporate spatial aspects into this, you get yet another picture: as SFKs activate themselves constantly (via autophosphorylation), a simple accumulation of many SFKs in a certain part of the cell (e.g., the cell membrane) could be enough to move the whole system above an activation threshold, leading to a complete cell-wide SFK activation. This would not require any of the standard causes used to explain activations in biology. Hope I managed to get at least a little bit across of what I mean.
In a nutshell: for me, the Nobel Prize was awarded today to a novel experimental method that nicely shows that cells are no bag full of chemicals and should not be investigated and explained as such; the role of spatial and temporal patterns is much underappreciated still. Or something like that.
Do you have any links to this, or other seminal papers in the field? Alternatively, a gallery of images or even an art book appropriate for the layperson?
I found this image on the wiki page comparing STED and confocal microscopy particularly striking and would love to see more like it:
[1] http://microscopyu.com/tutorials/flash/superresolution/stedv...
Thanks for the info. Your mention of STORM led me to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-resolution_microscopy
Given all these competing technologies, could you comment on why the Nobel was given to STED/PALM/STORM(?) in particular?
I've never actually used STED, (PALM & STORM are the same, simultaneously co-invented). I have used STORM, and I think the reason is because they're technically a bit more straightforward and require some nice software on a standard scope rather than a bit more complicated scope. So STED, while a bit older, I think might be a bit harder to do technically than the newer (computational) techniques.
All of them are super cool and in the past 5 years are quickly becoming 'standard techniques' that really will change the way people think about the structure of cells. They've increased our ability to peer into live, unperturbed cells from a resolution of ~200nm to as few as ~10nm - or the difference from being able to see that there is protein structure, to seeing what the structure is.
Betzig says, "there was this big gap on my résumé. So I knew I had to come up with some intellectual capital to get people to listen to me again."
http://www.hhmi.org/news/eric-betzig-wins-2014-nobel-prize-c...
An interesting video: http://www.ibiology.org/ibiomagazine/issue-2/eric-betzig-and...
Here's the original paper describing PALM: http://janelia.org/sites/default/files/biblio/field_related_...
http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2014/04/janelia-farm...
And the on-campus 'housing':
http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2014/03/room-at-jane...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STED_microscopy
(Stefan Hell)
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoactivated_localization_mic...
(Eric Betzig and William Moerner)
Compare to Thomson Reuters' predictions. http://thomsonreuters.com/press-releases/092014/2014-nobel-l...
On a side note, I hope this added recognition will pump more money into his lab's equipment. Despite being a physical chemistry lab, their computers were painfully slow and outdated.