[nicwilson]

Hmm, there are several things I find strange about this article.

There are 22 proteinogenic amino acids (admittedly two are rare, selenocysteine and pyrrolysine, but with rarity comes importance when they do occur).

The search for the correct amino acid is not class balanced, e.g. the aromatics are much less common.

The tRNAs are also not equally distributed, neither in the codon-anticodon pairing, the aromatics are coded for by only one or two, I suppose this is somewhat reflected in the frequency (see above).

Even within one amino acids possible tRNA the ratio's are species dependant to a remarkable degree (see codon optimisation in genetic engineering. You can also tell by sequence analysis if horizontal transfer has occurred if the frequencies are all wrong) and is used to regulate synthesis. e.g. if a species has tRNA UUU : tRNA UUC of 3 : 1 then (classically) one would expect a protein incorporating phenylalanine as UUC to take 3 times longer than UUU to incorporate.

[knzhou]

This is all correct, and shows why both biologists and physicists don't take the conclusions of Patel's paper too seriously. Just aiming for "20" without any context for what that means is a bad kind of numerology. There's probably a grain of truth in the paper, but only enough to get to something like "20 plus or minus 10", not exactly "20".

Speaking as an MIT alumnus, some of the school's promotional material is glitzy on the outside and hollow on the inside. The MIT Tech Review's "Emerging Technologies" column is particularly bad. I've written numerous rants over the years rebutting incredibly misleading viral articles from it. It's a shame that people automatically trust it because of the MIT name.

[jessriedel]

MIT Tech Review is no longer associated with MIT. The name is historical vestige. It's just another magazine like Popular Science.

[dekhn]

that's not correct, they are owned by MIT.

[jessriedel]

Thanks you're right. The important idea I was remembering is that they have no editorial connection to the university; they're just an investment.

[lonelappde]

It's part of the trend of MIT and many other venerable institutions cashing out their reputation instead of building on it.

[colechristensen]

Weird that they wouldn't protect their trademark

[tyingq]

Not sure that "no longer associated with MIT" is exactly right.

"our coverage is independent of any influence, including our ownership by MIT."

https://www.technologyreview.com/about/

[Ultimatt]

Yup the biology bit is hocus pocus. If you read the single author arxiv paper referenced, its thinking is quite confused on the biology. The main thing discussed is hydrogen bonding between nucleotide pairs which doesn't fit the magic numbers. Then in an odd Q and A section its eluded to that mrna-trna interactions do, therefore it must be. Already the different bond lengths of the hydrogen bonding is known to be part of optimising that process. It says nothing about selection of nucleotides from the surrounding environment being magically quantum, rather than classically diffusive. That's something this blog article made up out of nothing.

[omar_a1]

I was also confused about the assertion that biologists dismissed quantum mechanic's affects on biological systems. Biochemists have known about this phenomenon for decades, including photosynthesis.

[lonelappde]

It seems not so clear cut?

This article mentions a controversy on the topic: https://physicsworld.com/a/is-photosynthesis-quantum-ish/

[omar_a1]

Maybe I'm just using a less narrow definition of quantum mechanics? I'm not referring to the specific quantum phenomena referenced in the article, but to quantum mechanics in general. In other words, since these redox steps are happening on a molecular scale, that of course quantum mechanics falls under its purview - as would anything else happening on this small of a scale.

For instance, not factoring in steric factors (e.g. uncertainty principle) or electron tunneling in the transfer of electrons during photosynthesis or cellular respiration would probably throw off your models. Biochemists are well aware of this; you couldn't effectively understand chemistry without understanding quantum mechanics.

[Ultimatt]

The difference is mainly of scale, would you describe calcium signalling and calcium ionic standing waves using quantum mechanics? You could. But its not relevant or helpful to do so as that bulk effect doesn't act as a quantum system with quantum behaviours. But a single calcium ion going across a potential gradient in a cation channel does quite often require that description. This is the difference here. Physicists quite often wander into Biology and make quite wild claims without even understanding what is already well known and understood via Chemistry, and sure some of that is inherently just fronting quantum mechanics behind the scenes. But its specifically if a system depends on a quantum effect in a quantum system to understand the observed phenomena. Using numerology rather than reaction rates to describe something being a quantum system isn't good science, it's not even good/exciting/interseting speculation.

[omar_a1]

"what is already well known and understood via Chemistry, and sure some of that is inherently just fronting quantum mechanics behind the scenes."

This is actually my main point. I'm not intending to reduce or dismiss (bio)chem through the lens of applied physics. I'm saying that anyone competent in biochem understands these properties on an intuitive level, and further understands that the root of these systems' behavior lies in quantum mechanics, even if they're not crunching wave equations on a daily basis. (That said, discussing s and p orbitals are a pretty routine part of figuring out organic reaction mechanisms.)

The field considers the quantum effects on these systems as a matter of course - as with your example about ion channel flow and caveats on bulk properties versus a single ion. There's still no question that quantum mechanics affects these systems, it's just a question of when it needs to be factored in to not throw off the calculations, and when the scale is large enough that its effects can be considered negligible.

[Ultimatt]

That article has nothing to do with the OP. There are plenty of effects which are quantum systems in molecular biology, photo chemistry especially and the quantum tunnelling of electrons and ions. That is not what is being discussed here at all. The original blog especially is completely wrong given both the source assertions which are also flawed in their reasoning.