It’s my view that we must become statistical biophysicists. Why statistical? Because microscopic behaviors must be repeated zillions of times to create macroscopic effects. Can you help me shift the thinking in our community? See below for a collaboration opportunity.
Here’s a true story from a number of years ago. A postdoc in the group comes to me in frustration. He has built a cool “semi-atomistic” coarse-grained protein model that has generated disappointing results. An alpha helix that’s clearly resolved in the X-ray structure of his protein completely unravels. Disappointment. But playing the optimistic supervisor, I ask, “Are we sure you’re wrong? Could that helix be marginally stable?” Further digging revealed an isoform of the protein where the helix in question was not resolvable via X-ray. Relief! I was pretty pleased with myself, I must say.
But now I’m disappointed that I was pleased.
I don’t about you but I grew up on equilibrium statistical mechanics. The beauty of a partition function, an ensemble, the ability to understand thermodynamic principles from microscopic rules. I love that stuff.
But what if we want to understand biology? Is a partition function really the most important object? This Fall, I’m going to lecture on biophysics for an assortment of biology and biomedical engineering students for just a few weeks; and for the first time in my teaching career, I’m planning to omit a partition-function based description of molecular behavior. I’m just not convinced it’s important enough for an abbreviated set of lectures.
Such a beautiful thing, the PMF. The potential of mean force is a ‘free energy landscape’ – the energy-like-function whose Boltzmann factor exp[ -PMF(x) / kT ] gives the relative probability* for any coordinate (or coordinate set) x by integrating out (averaging over) all other coordinates. For example, x could be the angle between two domains in a protein or the distance of a ligand from a binding site.
The PMF’s basis in statistical mechanics is clear. When visualized, its basins and barriers cry out “Mechanism!’’ and kinetics are often inferred from the heights of these features.
Yet aside from the probability part of the preceding paragraph, the rest is largely speculative and subjective … and that’s assuming the PMF is well-sampled, which I highly doubt in most biomolecular cases of interest.
“Proteins don’t know biology” is one of those things I’m overly fond of saying. Fortunately, it’s true, and it gives quantitative folks a foot in the door of the magical world of biology. And it’s not only proteins that are ignorant of their role in the life of a cell, the same goes for DNA, RNA, lipids, etc. None of these molecules knows anything. They can only follow physical laws.
Is this just a physicist’s arrogance along the lines of, “Chemistry is just a bunch of special cases, uninteresting consequences of quantum mechanics”? I hope not. To the contrary, you should try to see that cells employ basic physics, but of a different type than what we learned (most of us, anyway) in our physical sciences curricula. This cell biophysics is fascinating, not highly mathematical, and offers a way of understanding numerous phenomena in the cell, which are all ‘special cases’ … but special cases of what?
You’re a quantitative person and you want to learn biology. My friend, you are in a difficult situation. If you really want to learn how biology works in a big-picture sense, as opposed to cutting yourself a very narrow slice of the great biological pie, then you have a challenging road ahead of you. Fortunately, many have walked it before you, and I want to give you some advice based on my own experiences. I should say at the outset that my own learning has focused mostly on the cell-biology part of the pie – not physiology, zoology, ecology, … and so my comments here refer to learning cell biology.
The scary thing is that I have been at this for almost 20 years (very part-time admittedly) and I would never dare to call myself a cell biologist. But I think it’s fair to say that by now I have a decent sense of what I know and what I don’t know. I will never be able to draw out the Krebs cycle, but I have a qualitative sense of its purpose and importance, as well as of general principles of cycles and catalyzed reactions in biochemistry. Not that impressive, I know, but I’m proud of it anyway.
Q: What is a trajectory?
A trajectory is the time-ordered sequence of system configurations which occur as all the coordinates evolve in time following some rules – hopefully rules embodying reasonable physical dynamics, such as Newton’s laws or constant-temperature molecular dynamics.
Q: What is a trajectory ensemble?
It’s a set of independent trajectories that together characterize a particular condition such as equilibrium or a non-equilibrium steady state. That is, the trajectories do not interact in any way, but statistically they describe some condition because of how they have been initiated – and when they are observed relative to their initialization … see below.
The Markov model, without question, is one of the most powerful and elegant tools available in many fields of biological modeling and beyond. In my world of molecular simulation, Markov models have provided analyses more insightful than would be possible with direct simulation alone. And I’m a user, too. Markov models, in their chemical-kinetics guise, play a prominent role in illustrating cellular biophysics in my online book, Physical Lens on the Cell.
Yet it’s fair to say that everything is Markovian and nothing is Markovian – and we need to understand this.
If you’re new to the business, a quick word on what “Markovian” means. A Markov process is a stochastic process where the future (i.e., the distribution of future outcomes) depends only on the present state of the system. Good examples would be chemical kinetics models with transition probabilities governed by rate constants or simple Monte Carlo simulation (a.k.a. Markov-chain Monte Carlo). To determine the next state of the system, we don’t care about the past: only the present state matters.
I was worried that a discussion of hair gel would have a certain bias toward men, but my wife assures me that women are just as likely to use a leave-in hair product. I’m going to rely on that unstatistical assurance and roll right on.