Calculating life? Duelling discourses in interdisciplinary systems biology

A high profile context in which physics and biology meet today is in the new field of systems biology. Systems biology is a fascinating subject for sociological investigation because the demands of interdisciplinary collaboration have brought epistemological issues and debates front and centre in discussions amongst systems biologists in conference settings, in publications, and in laboratory coffee rooms. One could argue that systems biologists are conducting their own philosophy of science. This paper explores the epistemic aspirations of the field by drawing on interviews with scientists working in systems biology, attendance at systems biology conferences and workshops, and visits to systems biology laboratories. It examines the discourses of systems biologists, looking at how they position their work in relation to previous types of biological inquiry, particularly molecular biology. For example, they raise the issue of reductionism to distinguish systems biology from molecular biology. This comparison with molecular biology leads to discussions about the goals and aspirations of systems biology, including epistemic commitments to quantification, rigor and predictability. Some systems biologists aspire to make biology more similar to physics and engineering by making living systems calculable, modelable and ultimately predictable-a research programme that is perhaps taken to its most extreme form in systems biology's sister discipline: synthetic biology. Other systems biologists, however, do not think that the standards of the physical sciences are the standards by which we should measure the achievements of systems biology, and doubt whether such standards will ever be applicable to 'dirty, unruly living systems'. This paper explores these epistemic tensions and reflects on their sociological dimensions and their consequences for future work in the life sciences.     

Combinatorial metabolic pathway assembly approaches and toolkits for modular assembly

Synthetic Biology is a rapidly growing interdisciplinary field that is primarily built upon foundational advances in molecular biology combined with engineering design principles such as modularity and interoperability. The field considers living systems as programmable at the genetic level and has been defined by the development of new platform technologies and methodological advances. A key concept driving the field is the Design-Build-Test-Learn cycle which provides a systematic framework for building new biological systems. One major application area for synthetic biology is biosynthetic pathway engineering that requires the modular assembly of different genetic regulatory elements and biosynthetic enzymes. In this review we provide an overview of modular DNA assembly and describe and compare the plethora of in vitro and in vivo assembly methods for combinatorial pathway engineering. Considerations for part design and methods for enzyme balancing are also presented, and we briefly discuss alternatives to intracellular pathway assembly including microbial consortia and cell-free systems for biosynthesis. Finally, we describe computational tools and automation for pathway design and assembly and argue that a deeper understanding of the many different variables of genetic design, pathway regulation and cellular metabolism will allow more predictive pathway design and engineering.     

Synthetic biology advancing clinical applications

The 'omics' era, with its identification of genetic and protein components, has combined with systems biology, which provided insights into network structures, to set the stage for synthetic biology, an emerging interdisciplinary life science that uses engineering principles. By capitalizing on an iterative design cycle that involves molecular and computational biology tools to assemble functional designer devices from a comprehensive catalogue of standardized biological components with predictable functions, synthetic biology has significantly advanced our understanding of complex control dynamics that program living systems. Such insights, collected over the past decade, are priming a variety of synthetic biology-inspired biomedical applications that have the potential to revolutionize drug discovery and production technologies, as well as treatment strategies for infectious diseases and metabolic disorders.     

Inferential explanations in biology

Among philosophers of science, there is now a widespread agreement that the DN model of explanation is poorly equipped to account for explanations in biology. Rather than identifying laws, so the consensus goes, researchers explain biological capacities by constructing a model of the underlying mechanism.We think that the dichotomy between DN explanations and mechanistic explanations is misleading. In this article, we argue that there are cases in which biological capacities are explained without constructing a model of the underlying mechanism. Although these explanations do not conform to Hempel’s DN model (they do not deduce the explanandum from laws of nature), they do invoke more or less stable generalisations. Because they invoke generalisations and have the form of an argument, we call them inferential explanations. We support this claim by considering two examples of explanations of biological capacities: pigeon navigation and photoperiodism. Next, we will argue that these non-mechanistic explanations are crucial to biology in three ways: (i) sometimes, they are the only thing we have (there is no alternative available), (ii) they are heuristically useful, and (iii) they provide genuine understanding and so are interesting in their own right.In the last sections we discuss the relation between types of explanations and types of experiments and situate our views within some relevant debates on explanatory power and explanatory virtues.     

Meta synthetic biology: controlling the evolution of engineered living systems

A major aim of synthetic biology is the design of robust living systems for real-world applications. In seemingly contrast, evolution changes the living, exploring new survival strategies in response to environmental challenges. How do we cope with this paradox? Can we control or even exploit the molecular mechanisms of evolution for biotechnological and biosustainable innovation and will the principles of engineering lead to fundamental insights in evolutionary biology? A merger of synthetic biology with experimental evolution is occurring and it will radically accelerate the development of these scientific disciplines.     

The synthetic biology puzzle: a qualitative study on public reflections towards a governance framework

Synthetic biology is currently one of the most debated emerging biotechnologies. The societal assessment of this technology is primarily based on contributions by scientists and policy makers, who focus mainly on technical challenges and possible risks. While public dialogue is given, it is yet rather limited. This study explores public debates concerning synthetic biology based on a focus group study with citizens from Austria and Germany and contextualises the analysed public views with content from policy reports and previous empirical studies on public engagement. The findings suggest that discussants favoured a gradual implementation process of synthetic biology, which is receptive to questions about the distribution of possible benefits. The discussed topics correspond in many ways with content from policy reports and former investigations, yet the emphasis of the discussions was different for many aspects.     

Interview with Sydney Brenner

The following text is an edited version of a recent interview with Sydney Brenner who has been at the forefront of many developments in molecular biology since the 1950s. It provides a participant’s view on current issues in the history and epistemology of molecular biology. The main issue raised by Brenner regards the relation of molecular biology to the new field of systems biology. Brenner defends the original programme of molecular biology—the molecular explanation of living processes—that in his view has yet to be completed. The programme of systems biology in contrast he views as either trivial or as not achievable since it purports to deal with inverse problems that are impossible to solve in complex living systems. Other issues covered in the conversation concern the impact of the human genome sequencing project, the commercial turn in molecular biology and the contested disciplinary status of the science.     

Synthetic circuits,devices and modules

The aim of synthetic biology is to design artificial biological systems for novel applications. From an engineering perspective, construction of biological systems of defined functionality in a hierarchical way is fundamental to this emerging field. Here, we highlight some current advances on design of several basic building blocks in synthetic biology including the artificial gene control elements, synthetic circuits and their assemblies into devices and modules. Such engineered basic building blocks largely expand the synthetic toolbox and contribute to our understanding of the underlying design principles of living cells.     

‘The importance of symbiosis in philosophy of biology: an analysis of the current debate on biological individuality and its historical roots’

Symbiosis plays a fundamental role in contemporary biology, as well as in recent thinking in philosophy of biology. The discovery of the importance and universality of symbiotic associations has brought new light to old debates in the field, including issues about the concept of biological individuality. An important aspect of these debates has been the formulation of the hologenome concept of evolution, the notion that holobionts are units of natural selection in evolution. This review examines the philosophical assumptions that underlie recent proposal of the hologenome concept of evolution, and traces those debates back in time to their historical origins, to the moment when the connection between the topics of symbiosis and biological individuality first caught the attention of biologists. The review is divided in two parts. The first part explores the historical origins of the connection between the notion of symbiosis and the concept of biological individuality, and emphasizes the role of A. de Bary, R. Pound, A. Schneider and C. Merezhkowsky in framing the debate. The second part examines the hologenome concept of evolution and explores four parallelisms between contemporary debates and the debates presented in the first part of the essay, arguing that the different debates raised by the hologenome concept were already present in the literature. I suggest that the novelty of the hologenome concept of evolution lies in the wider appreciation of the importance of symbiosis for maintaining life on Earth as we know it. Finally, I conclude by suggesting the importance of exploring the connections among contemporary biology, philosophy of biology and history of biology in order to gain a better understanding of contemporary biology.     

Ecology and evolution of plant�Cpollinator interactions

Background

Some of the most exciting advances in pollination biology have resulted from interdisciplinary research combining ecological and evolutionary perspectives. For example, these two approaches have been essential for understanding the functional ecology of floral traits, the dynamics of pollen transport, competition for pollinator services, and patterns of specialization and generalization in plant–pollinator interactions. However, as research in these and other areas has progressed, many pollination biologists have become more specialized in their research interests, focusing their attention on either evolutionary or ecological questions. We believe that the continuing vigour of a synthetic and interdisciplinary field like pollination biology depends on renewed connections between ecological and evolutionary approaches.

Scope

In this Viewpoint paper we highlight the application of ecological and evolutionary approaches to two themes in pollination biology: (1) links between pollinator behaviour and plant mating systems, and (2) generalization and specialization in pollination systems. We also describe how mathematical models and synthetic analyses have broadened our understanding of pollination biology, especially in human-modified landscapes. We conclude with several suggestions that we hope will stimulate future research. This Viewpoint also serves as the introduction to this Special Issue on the Ecology and Evolution of Plant–Pollinator Interactions. These papers provide inspiring examples of the synergy between evolutionary and ecological approaches, and offer glimpses of great accomplishments yet to come.Key words: Floral traits, generalization and specialization, global change, male fitness, mating systems, multiple paternity, plant–pollinator networks, pollen and gene dispersal, pollinator behaviour, pollination syndromes, pollination webs, self-fertilization     

Logical fallacies and invasion biology

Leading invasion biologists sometimes dismiss critics and criticisms of their field by invoking “the straw man” fallacy. Critics of invasion biology are also labelled as a small group of “naysayers” or “contrarians”, who are sometimes engaging in “science denialism”. Such unfortunate labels can be seen as a way to possibly suppress legitimate debates and dismiss or minimize reasonable concerns about some aspects of invasion biology, including the uncertainties about the geographic origins and complex environmental impacts of species, and the control programs against species perceived as “invasive”. In assessing the quality of the debate in this area, we examine the validity of the use of various strategies, including the “straw man” concept, and explore a range of potential logical fallacies present in some recent prominent discussions about invasion biology and so-called “invasive” species. The goal is to add some clarity to the concepts involved, point out some problematic issues, and improve the quality of the debates as the discussions move forward.     

Aiming high,but investing little

The French government has ambitious goals to make France a leading nation for synthetic biology research, but it still needs to put its money where its mouth is and provide the field with dedicated funding and other support.Synthetic biology is one of the most rapidly growing fields in the biological sciences and is attracting an increasing amount of public and private funding. France has also seen a slow but steady development of this field: the establishment of a national network of synthetic biologists in 2005, the first participation of a French team at the International Genetically Engineered Machine competition in 2007, the creation of a Master''s curriculum, an institute dedicated to synthetic and systems biology at the University of Évry-Val-d''Essonne-CNRS-Genopole in 2009–2010, and an increasing number of conferences and debates. However, scientists have driven the field with little dedicated financial support from the government.Yet the French government has a strong self-perception of its strengths and has set ambitious goals for synthetic biology. The public are told about a “new generation of products, industries and markets” that will derive from synthetic biology, and that research in the field will result in “a substantial jump for biotechnology” and an “industrial revolution”[1,2]. Indeed, France wants to compete with the USA, the UK, Germany and the rest of Europe and aims “for a world position of second or third”[1]. However, in contrast with the activities of its competitors, the French government has no specific scheme for funding or otherwise supporting synthetic biology[3]. Although we read that “France disposes of strong competences” and “all the assets needed”[2], one wonders how France will achieve its ambitious goals without dedicated budgets or detailed roadmaps to set up such institutions.In fact, France has been a straggler: whereas the UK and the USA have published several reports on synthetic biology since 2007, and have set up dedicated governing networks and research institutions, the governance of synthetic biology in France has only recently become an official matter. The National Research and Innovation Strategy (SNRI) only defined synthetic biology as a “priority” challenge in 2009 and created a working group in 2010 to assess the field''s developments, potentialities and challenges; the report was published in 2011[1].At the same time, the French Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices (OPECST) began a review of the field “to establish a worldwide state of the art and the position of our country in terms of training, research and technology transfer”. Its 2012 report entitled The Challenges of Synthetic Biology[2] assessed the main ethical, legal, economic and social challenges of the field. It made several recommendations for a “controlled” and “transparent” development of synthetic biology. This is not a surprise given that the development of genetically modified organisms and nuclear power in France has been heavily criticized for lack of transparency, and that the government prefers to avoid similar future controversies. Indeed, the French government seems more cautious today: making efforts to assess potential dangers and public opinion before actually supporting the science itself.Both reports stress the necessity of a “real” and “transparent” dialogue between science and society and call for “serene […] peaceful and constructive” public discussion. The proposed strategy has three aims: to establish an observatory, to create a permanent forum for discussion and to broaden the debate to include citizens[4]. An Observatory for Synthetic Biology was set up in January 2012 to collect information, mobilize actors, follow debates, analyse the various positions and organize a public forum. Let us hope that this observatory—unlike so many other structures—will have a tangible and durable influence on policy-making, public opinion and scientific practice.Many structural and organizational challenges persist, as neither the National Agency for Research nor the National Centre for Scientific Research have defined the field as a funding priority and public–private partnerships are rare in France. Moreover, strict boundaries between academic disciplines impede interdisciplinary work, and synthetic biology is often included in larger research programmes rather than supported as a research field in itself. Although both the SNRI and the OPECST reports make recommendations for future developments—including setting up funding policies and platforms—it is not clear whether these will materialize, or when, where and what size of investments will be made.France has ambitious goals for synthetic biology, but it remains to be seen whether the government is willing to put ‘meat to the bones'' in terms of financial and institutional support. If not, these goals might come to be seen as unrealistic and downgraded or they will be replaced with another vision that sees synthetic biology as something that only needs discussion and deliberation but no further investment. One thing is already certain: the future development of synthetic biology in France is a political issue.     

Designer Condensates: A Toolkit for the Biomolecular Architect

Protein phase separation has emerged as a novel paradigm to explain the biogenesis of membraneless organelles and other so-called biomolecular condensates. While the implication of this physical phenomenon within cell biology is providing us with novel ways for understanding how cells compartmentalize biochemical reactions and encode function in such liquid-like assemblies, the newfound appreciation of this process also provides immense opportunities for designing and sculpting biological matter. Here, we propose that understanding the cell’s instruction manual of phase separation will enable bioengineers to begin creating novel functionalized biological materials and unprecedented tools for synthetic biology. We present FASE as the synthesis of the existing sticker-spacer framework, which explains the physical driving forces underlying phase separation, with quintessential principles of Scandinavian design. FASE serves both as a designer condensates catalogue and construction manual for the aspiring (membraneless) biomolecular architect. Our approach aims to inspire a new generation of bioengineers to rethink phase separation as an opportunity for creating reactive biomaterials with unconventional properties and to encode novel biological function in living systems. Although still in its infancy, several studies highlight how designer condensates have immediate and widespread potential applications in industry and medicine.     

合成生物学伦理、法律与社会问题探讨

合成生物学是以基因组学、系统生物学知识和分子生物学技术为基础,综合了科学与工程的一门新兴交叉学科。它使生命科学和生物技术研发进入了以人工设计、合成自然界中原本不曾出现的人造生命体系,以及对这些人工体系进行体内、体外优化,或利用这些人造生命体系研究自然生命规律为目标的新时代。然而,合成生物学研究在迅速发展、表现出巨大潜力和应用前景的同时,也引发了社会各界对相关社会、伦理、安全,以及知识产权等问题的重视与讨论。就世界各国针对合成生命对传统意义上生命概念的挑战、合成生物学产品存在的潜在风险危害、合成生物学研究的风险评估与监管等问题进行回顾综述和相关探讨。     

Crosstalk between endogenous and synthetic components--synthetic signaling meets endogenous components

Synthetic biology uses biological components to engineer new functionality in living organisms. We have used the tools of synthetic biology to engineer detector plants that can sense man-made chemicals, such as the explosive trinitrotoluene, and induce a response detectable by eye or instrumentation. A goal of this type of work is to make the designed system orthogonal, that is, able to function independently of systems in the host. In this review, the design and function of two partially synthetic signaling pathways for use in plants is discussed. We describe observed interactions (crosstalk) with endogenous signaling components. This crosstalk can be beneficial, allowing the creation of hybrid synthetic/endogenous signaling pathways, or detrimental, resulting in system noise and/or false positives. Current approaches in the field of synthetic biology applicable to the design of orthogonal signaling systems, including the design of synthetic components, partially synthetic systems that utilize crosstalk to signal through endogenous components, computational redesign of proteins, and the use of heterologous components, are discussed.     

Synthetic biology confronts publics and policy makers: challenges for communication, regulation and commercialization

The novelty of synthetic biology lies in the use of synthesized parts that can be arranged to make useful products. Such advanced, high-throughput genetic engineering projects redesign and fabricate existing biological systems as well as new biological parts, devices and systems that do not occur in nature. This Opinion discusses challenges raised by synthetic biology for public acceptance, regulation, commercialization and the emerging global issue of access to genetic resources and information. As with all new fields of research, maintaining the trust of the public and policy regulators is paramount. Hype and exaggerated claims are counterproductive to developing adaptive and ethically sound regulatory models responsive to stakeholder concerns.     

Computer-aided design of biological circuits using TinkerCell

Synthetic biology is an engineering discipline that builds on modeling practices from systems biology and wet-lab techniques from genetic engineering. As synthetic biology advances, efficient procedures will be developed that will allow a synthetic biologist to design, analyze, and build biological networks. In this idealized pipeline, computer-aided design (CAD) is a necessary component. The role of a CAD application would be to allow efficient transition from a general design to a final product. TinkerCell is a design tool for serving this purpose in synthetic biology. In TinkerCell, users build biological networks using biological parts and modules. The network can be analyzed using one of several functions provided by TinkerCell or custom programs from third-party sources. Since best practices for modeling and constructing synthetic biology networks have not yet been established, TinkerCell is designed as a flexible and extensible application that can adjust itself to changes in the field.     

Sequencing enabling design and learning in synthetic biology

The ability to read and quantify nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA using sequencing technologies has revolutionized our understanding of life. With the emergence of synthetic biology, these tools are now being put to work in new ways — enabling de novo biological design. Here, we show how sequencing is supporting the creation of a new wave of biological parts and systems, as well as providing the vast data sets needed for the machine learning of design rules for predictive bioengineering. However, we believe this is only the tip of the iceberg and end by providing an outlook on recent advances that will likely broaden the role of sequencing in synthetic biology and its deployment in real-world environments.     

Systems biology, proteomics, and the future of health care: toward predictive, preventative, and personalized medicine

The emergence of systems biology is bringing forth a new set of challenges for advancing science and technology. Defining ways of studying biological systems on a global level, integrating large and disparate data types, and dealing with the infrastructural changes necessary to carry out systems biology, are just a few of the extraordinary tasks of this growing discipline. Despite these challenges, the impact of systems biology will be far-reaching, and significant progress has already been made. Moving forward, the issue of how to use systems biology to improve the health of individuals must be a priority. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the field of systems biology and one of its important disciplines, proteomics, will have a major role in creating a predictive, preventative, and personalized approach to medicine. In this review, we define systems biology, discuss the current capabilities of proteomics and highlight some of the necessary milestones for moving systems biology and proteomics into mainstream health care.     

Systems microscopy: An emerging strategy for the life sciences

Dynamic cellular processes occurring in time and space are fundamental to all physiology and disease. To understand complex and dynamic cellular processes therefore demands the capacity to record and integrate quantitative multiparametric data from the four spatiotemporal dimensions within which living cells self-organize, and to subsequently use these data for the mathematical modeling of cellular systems. To this end, a raft of complementary developments in automated fluorescence microscopy, cell microarray platforms, quantitative image analysis and data mining, combined with multivariate statistics and computational modeling, now coalesce to produce a new research strategy, “systems microscopy”, which facilitates systems biology analyses of living cells. Systems microscopy provides the crucial capacities to simultaneously extract and interrogate multiparametric quantitative data at resolution levels ranging from the molecular to the cellular, thereby elucidating a more comprehensive and richly integrated understanding of complex and dynamic cellular systems. The unique capacities of systems microscopy suggest that it will become a vital cornerstone of systems biology, and here we describe the current status and future prospects of this emerging field, as well as outlining some of the key challenges that remain to be overcome.