Physical explanations and biological explanations,empirical laws and a priori laws

Philosophers intent upon characterizing the difference between physics and biology often seize upon the purported fact that physical explanations conform more closely to the covering law model than biological explanations. Central to this purported difference is the role of laws of nature in the explanations of these two sciences. However, I argue that, although certain important differences between physics and biology can be highlighted by differences between physical and biological explanations, these differences are not differences in the degree to which those explanations conform to the covering law model, which fits biology about as well as it does physics.     

A role for the mismatch repair system during incipient speciation in Saccharomyces

The cause of reproductive isolation between biological species is a major issue in the field of biology. Most explanations of hybrid sterility require either genetic incompatibilities between nascent species or gross physical imbalances between their chromosomes, such as rearrangements or ploidy changes. An alternative possibility is that genomes become incompatible at a molecular level, dependent on interactions between primary DNA sequences. The mismatch repair system has previously been shown to contribute to sterility in a hybrid between established yeast species by preventing successful meiotic crossing-over leading to aneuploidy. This system could also promote or reinforce the formation of new species in a similar manner, by making diverging genomes incompatible in meiosis. To test this possibility we crossed yeast strains of the same species but from diverse historical or geographic sources. We show that these crosses are partially sterile and present evidence that the mismatch repair system is largely responsible for this sterility.     

Biophysical limits on athermal effects of RF and microwave radiation

Using biophysical criteria, I show that continuous radiofrequency (RF) and microwave radiation with intensity less than 10 mW/cm(2) are unlikely to affect physiology significantly through athermal mechanisms. Biological systems are fundamentally noisy on the molecular scale as a consequence of thermal agitation and are noisy macroscopically as a consequence of physiological functions and animal behavior. If electromagnetic fields are to significantly affect physiology, their direct physical effect must be greater than that from the ubiquitous endogenous noise. Using that criterion, I show that none of a set of interactions of weak fields, which I argue is nearly complete on dimensional grounds, can affect biology on the molecular scale. Moreover, I conclude that such weak fields are quite unlikely to generate significant effects in their interactions with larger biological elements such as cells. In the course of that analysis, I examine important special examples of electromagnetic interactions: "direct" interactions where biology is modified simply by the motion of charged elements generated by the electric field; resonance interactions; the effects of electrostrictive forces and induced dipole moments; and modifications of radical pair recombination probabilities. In each case, I show that it is unlikely that low intensity fields can generate significant physiological consequences.     

Emergence,therefore antireductionism? A critique of emergent antireductionism

Emergent antireductionism in biological sciences states that even though all living cells and organisms are composed of molecules, molecular wholes are characterized by emergent properties that can only be understood from the perspective of cellular and organismal levels of composition. Thus, an emergence claim (molecular wholes are characterized by emergent properties) is thought to support a form of antireductionism (properties of higher-level molecular wholes can only be understood by taking into account concepts, theories and explanations dealing with higher-level entities). I argue that this argument is flawed: even if molecular wholes are characterized by emergent properties and even if many successful explanations in biology are not molecular, there is no entailment between the two claims.     

Parasitism genes and host range disparities in biotrophic nematodes: the conundrum of polyphagy versus specialisation

This essay considers biotrophic cyst and root-knot nematodes in relation to their biology, host-parasite interactions and molecular genetics. These nematodes have to face the biological consequences of the physical constraints imposed by the soil environment in which they live while their hosts inhabit both above and below ground environments. The two groups of nematodes appear to have adopted radically different solutions to these problems with the result that one group is a host specialist and reproduces sexually while the other has an enormous host range and reproduces by mitotic parthenogenesis. We consider what is known about the modes of parasitism used by these nematodes and how it relates to their host range, including the surprising finding that parasitism genes in both nematode groups have been recruited from bacteria. The nuclear and mitochondrial genomes of these two nematode groups are very different and we consider how these findings relate to the biology of the organisms.     

Protein–protein interactions and genetic diseases: The interactome

Protein–protein interactions mediate essentially all biological processes. Despite the quality of these data being widely questioned a decade ago, the reproducibility of large-scale protein interaction data is now much improved and there is little question that the latest screens are of high quality. Moreover, common data standards and coordinated curation practices between the databases that collect the interactions have made these valuable data available to a wide group of researchers. Here, I will review how protein–protein interactions are measured, collected and quality controlled. I discuss how the architecture of molecular protein networks has informed disease biology, and how these data are now being computationally integrated with the newest genomic technologies, in particular genome-wide association studies and exome-sequencing projects, to improve our understanding of molecular processes perturbed by genetics in human diseases. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: From Genome to Function.     

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.     

Patterns and processes in abundance-body size relationships for marine benthic invertebrates

1. The nature of abundance-body size relationships in animal communities, and especially the drivers behind the observed patterns, have been a focus of persistent debate in animal ecology. In a recent review, Allen et al. (2006) categorized five mechanistic explanations behind the commonly observed polymodality in these relationships: energetic constraints; phylogenetic constraints; biogeographical determinants; habitat structure; and community interactions. Progress in understanding of these patterns and the processes underlying them have been hindered by the use of a range of methods that differ in their validity and robustness. 2. Here, we used data on invertebrate body sizes from a variety of sandy beaches in the UK to test the hypothesis that these communities display modality in their abundance-body size relationships. We quantified modality in the relationships using kernel density estimation and smoothed bootstrap resampling and then evaluated the competing explanations for this modality based on the patterns identified in conjunction with measurements of the physical beach environment. 3. We found bimodal distributions in the body size spectrum for benthic invertebrates at nine of 16 sites. There was a consistent trough in the spectrum at around 0·5-1 mm diameter, which reflected the traditional split between meiofauna and macrofauna. Beaches with finer particle sizes and more heterogeneous macrofauna hosted communities with more than two modes. 4. Our results suggest that modality in sandy beach benthic communities is unlikely to be explained by any single hypothesis. There will be an interplay between physical and biological factors, with different explanations accounting for modality at different scales.     

Recent philosophy of biology: a review

Academia is subdivided into separate disciplines, most of which are quite discrete. In this review I trace the interactions between two of these disciplines: biology and philosophy of biology. I concentrate on those topics that have the most extensive biological content: function, species, systematics, selection, reduction and development. In the final section of this paper I touch briefly on those issues that biologists and philosophers have addressed that do not have much in the way of biological content.     

The challenges and scope of theoretical biology

Scientific theories seek to provide simple explanations for significant empirical regularities based on fundamental physical and mechanistic constraints. Biological theories have rarely reached a level of generality and predictive power comparable to physical theories. This discrepancy is explained through a combination of frozen accidents, environmental heterogeneity, and widespread non-linearities observed in adaptive processes. At the same time, model building has proven to be very successful when it comes to explaining and predicting the behavior of particular biological systems. In this respect biology resembles alternative model-rich frameworks, such as economics and engineering. In this paper we explore the prospects for general theories in biology, and suggest that these take inspiration not only from physics, but also from the information sciences. Future theoretical biology is likely to represent a hybrid of parsimonious reasoning and algorithmic or rule-based explanation. An open question is whether these new frameworks will remain transparent to human reason. In this context, we discuss the role of machine learning in the early stages of scientific discovery. We argue that evolutionary history is not only a source of uncertainty, but also provides the basis, through conserved traits, for very general explanations for biological regularities, and the prospect of unified theories of life.     

合成生物学及其在生物技术中的应用进展

合成生物学是一门21世纪生物学的新兴学科,它着眼生物科学与工程科学的结合,把生物系统当作工程系统"从下往上"进行处理,由"单元"(unit)到"部件"(device)再到"系统"(system)来设计,修改和组装细胞构件及生物系统.合成生物学是分子和细胞生物学、进化系统学、生物化学、信息学、数学、计算机和工程等多学科交叉的产物.目前研究应用包括两个主要方面:一是通过对现有的、天然存在的生物系统进行重新设计和改造,修改已存在的生物系统,使该系统增添新的功能.二是通过设计和构建新的生物零件、组件和系统,创造自然界中尚不存在的人工生命系统.合成生物学作为一门建立在基因组方法之上的学科,主要强调对创造人工生命形态的计算生物学与实验生物学的协同整合.必须强调的是,用来构建生命系统新结构、产生新功能所使用的组件单元既可以是基因、核酸等生物组件,也可以是化学的、机械的和物理的元件.本文跟踪合成生物学研究及应用,对其在DNA水平编程、分子修饰、代谢途径、调控网络和工业生物技术等方面的进展进行综述.     

Basic statistical recipes for the emergence of biochemical discernment

An essential step towards understanding life would be to identify the very basic mechanisms responsible for the discerning behaviour of living biochemical systems, absent from randomly reacting chemical soups. One intuitively feels that this question goes beyond the particular nature of the biological molecules and should relate to general physical principles. The pre-eminent physicist Ludwig Boltzmann early envisioned life as a struggle for entropy, in concordance with the subsequent principle of self-organization out of equilibrium. Re-examination of elementary steady state biochemical systems from a statistical perspective supports this view and shows that sigmoidal responses arising from microstates elimination, are sufficient to explain innermost characteristics of life, including its capacity to convert random molecular interactions into accurate biological reactions. A primary operating strategy to achieve this goal is the introduction of time-irreversible transitions in molecular state conversion cycles by injection of free energy, which confers decisional capacity to single macromolecules. Selected examples from various fields of molecular biology such as enzymology and gene expression, are provided to show that these non-equilibrium steady state mechanisms remain important in contemporary biochemical systems. But in addition, information archiving allowed the emergence of the time-reversible counterparts of these mechanisms, mediated by evolutionary pre-organized macromolecular complexes capable of generating discernment in a non-dissipative manner.     

Modularity: a new perspective in biology

Several decades of research in biochemistry and molecular biology have been devoted for studies on isolated enzymes and proteins. Recent high throughput technologies in genomics and proteomics have resulted in avalanche of information about several genes, proteins and enzymes in variety of living systems. Though these efforts have greatly contributed to the detailed understanding of a large number of individual genes and proteins, this explosion of information has simultaneously brought out the limitations of reductionism in understanding complex biological processes. The genes or gene products do not function in isolation in vivo. A delicate and dynamic molecular architecture is required for precision of the chemical reactions associated with "life". In future, a paradigm shift is, therefore, envisaged, in biology leading to exploration of molecular organizations in physical and genomic context, a subtle transition from conventional molecular biology to modular biology. A module can be defined as an organization of macromolecules performing a synchronous function in a given metabolic pathway. In modular biology, the biological processes of interest are explored as complex systems of functionally interacting macromolecules. The present article describes the perceptions of the concept of modularity, in terms of associations among genes and proteins, presenting a link between reductionist approach and system biology.     

Thirty years of <Emphasis Type="Italic">Biology &amp; Philosophy:</Emphasis> philosophy of which biology?

Which domains of biology do philosophers of biology primarily study? The fact that philosophy of biology has been dominated by an interest for evolutionary biology is widely admitted, but it has not been strictly demonstrated. Here I analyse the topics of all the papers published in Biology & Philosophy, just as the journal celebrates its thirtieth anniversary. I then compare the distribution of biological topics in Biology & Philosophy with that of the scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA, focusing on the recent period 2003–2015. This comparison reveals a significant mismatch between the distributions of these topics. I examine plausible explanations for that mismatch. Finally, I argue that many biological topics underrepresented in philosophy of biology raise important philosophical issues and should therefore play a more central role in future philosophy of biology.     

The third dimension for protein interactions and complexes

Interaction discovery methods, such as the two-hybrid system and affinity purification, suggest thousands of protein–protein interactions. Structural biology provides atomic details for many interactions but, to date, there has been limited discussion of how these two fields complement each other. Here, we apply a structural perspective to interpret interactions discovered by different techniques. This perspective reveals indirect interactions in two-hybrid systems, instances where molecular labels might obstruct interfaces, and possible explanations for why certain promiscuous proteins interact with many others. It also highlights that some methods favour tight complexes whereas others favour interactions of a more transient nature. We conclude by discussing how a combination of interaction discovery and structural biology will enhance our understanding of complex cellular processes.     

Prospects of nanoparticle–DNA binding and its implications in medical biotechnology

Bio-nanotechnology is a new interdisciplinary R&D area that integrates engineering and physical science with biology through the development of multifunctional devices and systems, focusing biology inspired processes or their applications, in particular in medical biotechnology. DNA based nanotechnology, in many ways, has been one of the most intensively studied fields in recent years that involves the use and the creation of bio-inspired materials and their technologies for highly selective biosensing, nanoarchitecture engineering and nanoelectronics. Increasing researches have been offered to a fundamental understanding how the interactions between the nanoparticles and DNA molecules could alter DNA molecular structure and its biochemical activities. This minor review describes the mechanisms of the nanoparticle–DNA binding and molecular interactions. We present recent discoveries and research progresses how the nanoparticle–DNA binding could vary DNA molecular structure, DNA detection, and gene therapy. We report a few case studies associated with the application of the nanoparticle–DNA binding devices in medical detection and biotechnology. The potential impacts of the nanoparticles via DNA binding on toxicity of the microorganisms are briefly discussed. The nanoparticle–DNA interactions and their impact on molecular and microbial functionalities have only drown attention in recent a few years. The information presented in this review can provide useful references for further studies on biomedical science and technology.     

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.     

Organic Codes: A Unifying Concept for Life

Although the knowledge about biological systems has advanced exponentially in recent decades, it is surprising to realize that the very definition of Life keeps presenting theoretical challenges. Even if several lines of reasoning seek to identify the essence of life phenomenon, most of these thoughts contain fundamental problem in their basic conceptual structure. Most concepts fail to identify either necessary or sufficient features to define life. Here, we analyzed the main conceptual frameworks regarding theoretical aspects that have been supporting the most accepted concepts of life, such as (i) the physical, (ii) the cellular and (iii) the molecular approaches. Based on an ontological analysis, we propose that Life should not be positioned under the ontological category of Matter. Yet, life should be better understood under the top-level ontology of “Process”. Exercising an epistemological approach, we propose that the essential characteristic that pervades each and every living being is the presence of organic codes. Therefore, we explore theories in biosemiotics and code biology in order to propose a clear concept of life as a macrocode composed by multiple inter-related coding layers. This way, as life is a sort of metaphysical process of encoding, the living beings became the molecular materialization of that process. From the proposed concept, we show that the evolutionary process is a fundamental characteristic for life’s maintenance but it is not necessary to define life, as many organisms are clearly alive but they do not participate in the evolutionary process (such as infertile hybrids). The current proposition opens a fertile field of debate in astrobiology, epistemology, biosemiotics, code biology and robotics.