12 ms·

Aren't proteins basically tiny mechanical machinery?

alimov 4y ago
I suppose so, but biological. Like another commenter pointed out “nanocules” could be a more fitting name (I don’t know if it’s used to refer to anything else)
- simulate-me 4y ago
  To me, "nanocules" sound like small molecules, which is the opposite of a protein.
  - alimov 4y ago
    Oh, that’s a good point :/
shadowofneptune 4y ago
Not mechanical, but chemical. At that level, brownian motion, molecular charges, and other forces we can't see at our scale are much more powerful than mechanical motion. All of the enzymes, ribozyes, etc. in your body rely on these forces as well as their own arrangement to produce chemical reactions which in turn drive their 'machinery'. The original idea of nanobots argued that with enough effort mechanical machines could work at that level, even if it would be difficult. It'd allow for these machines to work outside of water and for them to be built out of materials like diamond. We're still not there yet, and may never be. I understand why researchers use the term 'nanotechnology' to describe their work with molecular biology, but it gives entirely the wrong impression. Just look in this thread, where you have people asking 'what could possibly go wrong?' Pop culture makes people think nanotech = tiny robots = grey goo destroying the world.
- flobosg 4y ago
  Mechanical energy is nevertheless relevant in several nanoscale events, see e.g. ATP synthase or bacterial flagellar motors.
  - jcims 4y ago
    Animation of ATP synthase in action: https://youtu.be/kXpzp4RDGJI https://youtu.be/kXpzp4RDGJI Electron transport chain: https://youtu.be/rdF3mnyS1p0 https://youtu.be/rdF3mnyS1p0
- anonymouse008 4y ago
  > Just look in this thread, where you have people asking 'what could possibly go wrong?' Pop culture makes people think nanotech = tiny robots = grey goo destroying the world. History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes… and so do peoples fears. Many times they are misinformed and misplaced, but usually right to be concerned in the first place. My dumb take: what could go wrong? Interrupting normal proteins to become prions, that’s what.
  - shadowofneptune 4y ago
    A lot of these designer proteins being bad medications or good poisons is a valid concern. At least with that in mind we can better reason about the risks and rewards.
- serf 4y ago
  >Just look in this thread, where you have people asking 'what could possibly go wrong?' Pop culture makes people think nanotech = tiny robots = grey goo destroying the world. it would take a serious lack of imagination on my part to look at something like a custom protein and not think about the possible disastrous consequences that follow -- let alone something being described to me as a 'molecular robot', even without a lot of pop-culture influence.
  - XorNot 4y ago
    Yes but conversely nerve gas exists, and is far more destructive - as well as just regular pathogens. Unless these things are capable of replication (they're not) then they're just an advanced version of regular drugs.

I suppose so, but biological. Like another commenter pointed out “nanocules” could be a more fitting name (I don’t know if it’s used to refer to anything else)

simulate-me 4y ago
To me, "nanocules" sound like small molecules, which is the opposite of a protein.
- alimov 4y ago
  Oh, that’s a good point :/

shadowofneptune 4y ago

Not mechanical, but chemical. At that level, brownian motion, molecular charges, and other forces we can't see at our scale are much more powerful than mechanical motion. All of the enzymes, ribozyes, etc. in your body rely on these forces as well as their own arrangement to produce chemical reactions which in turn drive their 'machinery'. The original idea of nanobots argued that with enough effort mechanical machines could work at that level, even if it would be difficult. It'd allow for these machines to work outside of water and for them to be built out of materials like diamond. We're still not there yet, and may never be. I understand why researchers use the term 'nanotechnology' to describe their work with molecular biology, but it gives entirely the wrong impression. Just look in this thread, where you have people asking 'what could possibly go wrong?' Pop culture makes people think nanotech = tiny robots = grey goo destroying the world.

flobosg 4y ago
Mechanical energy is nevertheless relevant in several nanoscale events, see e.g. ATP synthase or bacterial flagellar motors.
- jcims 4y ago
  Animation of ATP synthase in action: https://youtu.be/kXpzp4RDGJI https://youtu.be/kXpzp4RDGJI Electron transport chain: https://youtu.be/rdF3mnyS1p0 https://youtu.be/rdF3mnyS1p0
anonymouse008 4y ago
> Just look in this thread, where you have people asking 'what could possibly go wrong?' Pop culture makes people think nanotech = tiny robots = grey goo destroying the world. History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes… and so do peoples fears. Many times they are misinformed and misplaced, but usually right to be concerned in the first place. My dumb take: what could go wrong? Interrupting normal proteins to become prions, that’s what.
- shadowofneptune 4y ago
  A lot of these designer proteins being bad medications or good poisons is a valid concern. At least with that in mind we can better reason about the risks and rewards.
serf 4y ago
>Just look in this thread, where you have people asking 'what could possibly go wrong?' Pop culture makes people think nanotech = tiny robots = grey goo destroying the world. it would take a serious lack of imagination on my part to look at something like a custom protein and not think about the possible disastrous consequences that follow -- let alone something being described to me as a 'molecular robot', even without a lot of pop-culture influence.
- XorNot 4y ago
  Yes but conversely nerve gas exists, and is far more destructive - as well as just regular pathogens. Unless these things are capable of replication (they're not) then they're just an advanced version of regular drugs.