We missing a huge chunk of the picture in medicine/biology (prions, nanobacs, etc.)?

Great Debates
1

In this thread, I’d like to debate the question of whether our view of biology, and one specific application of it (medicine) is due for a major revolution.

In question are the possibility of a wide range of subcellular structures from prions and so-called “nanobacteria” (which may not deserve the name and may not have any genetic code at all) of which there is a growing evidence of their role in a wide range of diseases in which the mechanisms were mysterious. In the case of prions, considerable work has been done demonstrating their apparent connection to a number of now well-known diseases.

http://science-education.nih.gov/nihHTML/ose/snapshots/multimedia/ritn/prions/prions1.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/madcow/prions.html

In the case of nanobacteria, their operation has been linked to an even wider number of calcification-type diseases that seem to match their profile: everything from scleroderma to MS to kidney stones to coronary artery disease. While their definition as life, and the idea that they might have RNA or DNA is, in my mind, unlikely, they seem to exist and demonstrate some unexpected features for such tiny particles that demand explanations of their own which would be instructive no matter what they turn out to be.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn5009

http://naturalscience.com/ns/cover/cover14.html

In evolution threads, we are often asked about the gap between early organic chemistry and what we understand as “life.” While there is no evidence that these subcellular forms are our ancestors (prions, for instance, are probably a recent development), they could give us considerable insight into the sorts of things that can go on in even very simple structures, whether or not we call them life. Our planet may indeed be much more abundant with ordered and replicating structures than we had believed. “Functional” order in organic chemistry, it seems, may be a lot more common than one would think.

In short, there seems to be ample possiblity of there being grounds for revolution in our understanding of discrete subcellular “things” (as opposed to the subcellular processes of normal cells which also contain their own much more well-known andobviously revolutionary potential if we can better understand them) that would have significant impact on both medicine as well as evolutionary biology and the study of abiogenesis. What do others think? There is clearly a range to be had here between legitimate borderlands science and silly quackery: we can’t forget the example of nutty theories like “orgone energy” its claims about “bions.”

Here’s a commonly cited overview of subcellular “stuff,” both in the “out there” variety and the well established.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/subcellular.html

2

New lifeforms you scientists didn’t know about, eh? And you thought you knew EVERYTHING, didn’t you? Pretty much confirms Creationism, doesn’t it?

Sorry, I couldn’t resist. :frowning:

3

Personally, I’d be even more excited if we discover something that is:

a) not a lifeform in any meaningful sense
b) still self-replicates or self-structures from raw materials in the environment in a complex manner

nanobacteria could be just such a phenomenon. A lot of the debate over them seems to be focused around whether or not they have some sort of proto-DNA. Personally, if they exist and are as omnipresent as they suggest, it would be just as interesting if they didn’t.

4

Hell, PROBLEMS do that, easily.

5

Well, these things are all interesting but hardly revolutionary. Prions have been known about for years; they were teaching us about them in medical school over twenty years ago. They’ve just gotten lots more press since the mad cow scares (and more research dollars). Heck, some viruses skate the line between what is considered 'Life" and nonlife also.

Yes, we are missing a whole lotta chunks. But progress is likely to continue in the usual fits and starts and sputters that it always has. The revolution, when it comes, will come more from new perspectives in organizing the information than new discoveries per se.

6

The revolution happened when we discovered tiny living things cause diseases. Now we’re just learning that the category of tiny living things is much larger (and many are tinier) than we had first imagined.

7

A lot of these things (viruses included) appear to be the fruits of life, and not the other way around. I’d say viruses long ago helped delineate when Koch’s Postulates should and should not be used to characterize pathogens. Just like viruses, prions do not replicate themselves; they rely entirely on a host organism to proliferate or be pathogenic at all. I might even put prions in a catagory of “macromolecular toxins”, and it is interesting that this particular toxin can render like proteins toxic by altering their confirmation and leading to a chain-reaction; but I don’t think that makes them all that special a variety of etiologic agents. Sundry toxins have wildly different mechanisms of action, but, in the absense of an antidote, you limit exposure, just like any other toxin. I don’t see medicine being revolutionized in this picture.