I am reminded of the debate over “junk DNA” and noncoding RNA, i.e. parts of the genome that get transcribed, but never get translated into protein. The null hypothesis is that neither does anything, they are just there because evolution only optimizes things just enough to work, and so there can be genome sections that don’t do anything and RNA transcripts that just get recycled. The maximum hypothesis (I have heard this from Ron Maimon and I think from John Mattick) is that the population of noncoding RNAs in a cell, forms an intelligent state-machine that controls everything the cell does. The current understanding seems to be, that noncoding DNA and noncoding RNA do often matter for cell function, but only as a kind of supplement to the old central dogma (DNA → RNA → protein), and most of the time they really are epiphenomenal.
The standard paradigm for morphogenesis seems to be a combination of genetic regulatory networks and Turing-style self-organization by chemical gradients, causing cell differentiation to occur in the appropriate parts of the embryo. The null hypothesis about “bioelectricity” would be that it’s irrelevant. The maximum hypothesis is that the “body electric” is the dominant factor in morphogenesis, and that e.g. limb regeneration is a matter of appropriately shaping electric gradients in tissue at the regeneration site… A unified approach might look at interactions among chemical gradients, electric gradients, and gene expression. The ion channels are important not just because they create the voltages, but they are also involved in chemical signaling. Perhaps there’s an interaction with G proteins.
yeah I think realistically what we’re actually seeing is that interaction networks are neuron-like redundant communication of morphogenic targets, and every cell is a complex redundant state machine which communicates using a variety of methods with neighbors. Bioelectricity is one of those network channels, and due to being able to react fast, is an important one, but chemical signaling will also be involved for slower messages or more precise messages or what have you. it does seem like he’s shown strong evidence for bioelectric signaling being probably the dominant cell role tag, with other signaling networks being involved in a different role than bioelectric, though this field isn’t where I’ve gone deep and I’m missing a lot of existing knowledge that probably answers many of these questions.
I am reminded of the debate over “junk DNA” and noncoding RNA, i.e. parts of the genome that get transcribed, but never get translated into protein. The null hypothesis is that neither does anything, they are just there because evolution only optimizes things just enough to work, and so there can be genome sections that don’t do anything and RNA transcripts that just get recycled. The maximum hypothesis (I have heard this from Ron Maimon and I think from John Mattick) is that the population of noncoding RNAs in a cell, forms an intelligent state-machine that controls everything the cell does. The current understanding seems to be, that noncoding DNA and noncoding RNA do often matter for cell function, but only as a kind of supplement to the old central dogma (DNA → RNA → protein), and most of the time they really are epiphenomenal.
The standard paradigm for morphogenesis seems to be a combination of genetic regulatory networks and Turing-style self-organization by chemical gradients, causing cell differentiation to occur in the appropriate parts of the embryo. The null hypothesis about “bioelectricity” would be that it’s irrelevant. The maximum hypothesis is that the “body electric” is the dominant factor in morphogenesis, and that e.g. limb regeneration is a matter of appropriately shaping electric gradients in tissue at the regeneration site… A unified approach might look at interactions among chemical gradients, electric gradients, and gene expression. The ion channels are important not just because they create the voltages, but they are also involved in chemical signaling. Perhaps there’s an interaction with G proteins.
yeah I think realistically what we’re actually seeing is that interaction networks are neuron-like redundant communication of morphogenic targets, and every cell is a complex redundant state machine which communicates using a variety of methods with neighbors. Bioelectricity is one of those network channels, and due to being able to react fast, is an important one, but chemical signaling will also be involved for slower messages or more precise messages or what have you. it does seem like he’s shown strong evidence for bioelectric signaling being probably the dominant cell role tag, with other signaling networks being involved in a different role than bioelectric, though this field isn’t where I’ve gone deep and I’m missing a lot of existing knowledge that probably answers many of these questions.