Share 
"Shapes in Living Systems" ... do you have questions ?
Monday, May 23, 2011
In order to maximize the interactions and exchange of ideas, we will substitute the roundtable sessions with brainstorming sessions at the end of each day. Questions that might be discussed will be formed by the participants, either before the symposium on our blog, or during the symposium at the beginning of each brainstorming session.
These discussions will be done in small groups of 10-15 participants, and will be animated by the invited speakers and symposium organizers.
Brainstorming session for each group will start by 15 minutes of quick ideas. The group will then choose one idea or a question to discuss in depth for 25 minutes and come up with solutions or hypotheses. At the end of the brainstorming session each group will have 3 minutes to present the results of their brainstorming session to others. The group will then also summarize the results as a short blog post to be shared and discussed further online on our blog.
Anyone interested in shapes? Please reply to this blog post to raise a question you want to be discussed at the brainstorming sessions!
- ‹ previous
- 4 of 9
- next ›
Comments
At a higher level, the relationships shape-function are more difficult to tackle. Because it is too tempting to fall in a finalistic way of thinking...
However, it remains abolutely true
Enjoyed this post but have there been any further updates since this was published?
Andy @ www.purelyhydroponic.com
Is the ratio between resolution and sample size of structural data determined by physical boundaries, by technical limitations, which might be overcome with development of technology, or by a more general limit to the amount of data we can analyze and interpret?
Biological systems contain structural information (shapes) on many levels of size, ranging from the molecular structure of proteins to the distribution of ecosystems in the biosphere. Methods for acquisition of biological structural data usually work within a very narrow range of resolution and sample size, e.g. x-ray crystallography for protein structure, fluorescence microscopy for whole cells, field studies for distribution of organisms in an ecosystem. In several methods these ranges are clearly limited by physical boundaries (e.g. unit cell size and wave length of x-rays in diffraction studies). In other cases current technical limitations might limit the resolution or the size of the sampled area, but development of technology may overcome these limitations in the future, increasing resolution by orders of magnitude (e.g. bandwidth limitation for wireless transmission in satellite remote sensing studies). Of course the collected structural information will at some point have to be displayed and interpreted. This may be the final and most severe limit to the size of structural datasets that can be used in biology. How much data can we still comprehend and interpret? Are large datasets still useful if their overwhelming size does not allow us any more to grasp the meaning?
Free books on programming
http://bookgrill.com/?pageg.html
Download here free books
Ray Ban UK sunglasses will keep leading the fashion in the market. To create stylish and function, Ray Ban is always a leading brand for eyeglasses. For the function, sunglasses should not only has the function protect the eyes but also is a accessory that increase the attractive appearance for wearer. Ray Ban sunglasses is well-known in fashion and classic, high-tech function, and a symbol of taste.
I have another comment linked to what Marina is saying. Looking at the coupling between form and function, it seems as though there is not one preceding and determining the other unilaterally, but a loop of mutul influence. In other words, it is not as simple as shape determines function or function determines shape.
so even before finding an instance where shape and function are decorrelated, I am curious wether there are cases where there is no 'loop', and the regulation goes only one way...
I pretty much like Marina's suggestion.
But, I do not totally agree with it: I do think shape and function could be dissociable sometimes.
A shape does not always have a functional goal for a living organism. At the level of proteins, it is easy to find links between shape and function precisely because a protein IS a shape ! It's goal in a cell life is to have and maintain a shape. Once the native form lost, the protein starts to be a real threat for the host (unfolded or misfolded proteins).
At a higher level, the relationships shape-function are more difficult to tackle. Because it is too tempting to fall in a finalistic way of thinking...
However, it remains abolutely true that an organism do invest in its shape most of the time. Why 'loosing' so much energy for that ? It's an interesting question to address...
Thanks Marina for your interesting contribution !
See you in a brainstorming session !
It seems that it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate the function and the shape of any living system. For me, it is a true challenge to find an example where the two are not at all connected and I would be very interested in such an unusual example. Is it a futile search? Perhaps other participants would enjoy entertaining their minds with this thought too? :)
Hi Marina,
great question!
I was thinking about what it meant if we found an example of a function in a living system that is REALLY not connected to shape. This would knock fundamental ideas that we have of the connection between shape und function on the head. Even if you think that function and shape do not relate you might just check on the wrong level and the shape is related to a function at another layer of organisation. This would make it even more interesting to find a real example.
What would be a function in a living system that does not require any special shapes?
And would you perhaps need a rich environment that provides you already with everything you need and therefore shape becomes unnecessary?
Post new comment