Skip to comments.
Make or break: the laws of motion
Chemistry World ^
| 28 November 2012
| Philip Ball
Posted on 11/30/2012 6:10:29 PM PST by neverdem
Calling chemistry molecular architecture is even more apt than it might seem. There was a time when architectural engineering was largely about getting buildings to stay up: to withstand the stresses and forces that act on them. But todays architecture is responsive, mutable, adaptive and dynamic. Likewise, chemistry could appear in its first flush to be about making bonds that will last, but todays chemistry is just as concerned with breaking as it is with making. The dynamic role of weak hydrogen bonding, for example, was illustrated with the discovery of DNAs structure: to template replication and transcription, the molecule must form unions of a finely tuned strength, sufficient to overcome thermal fluctuations but weak enough to anneal flaws and to prevent life crystallising into death.
The machine metaphors of nanochemistry and molecular biology now make it plain that dynamic function arises from the use of weak, temporary interactions hydrogen bonding, hydrophobic interactions, screened ionic forces between relatively strongly linked but flexible scaffolds. This is a more challenging engineering problem than is often recognised; its akin to the problem of a robot grasping an egg. And while we tend to think of bonds as either holding or breaking, like an adhesive joint or a masonry beam, in fact there is no well-defined rupture stress: in 1978, biophysicist George Bell argued that loading a chemical bond simply increases its unbinding rate in exponential proportion to the load applied.1
In view of this relation, the question biology has to face is: what is the optimal bond strength for a given mechanical function? This issue is tackled by Henry Hess of Columbia University, US, in a paper that is stimulating fresh thinking about molecular machines.2 Consider a kinesin motor protein walking along a tubulin track. The objective is to transfer impulse from the proteins motor stroke a conformational change driven by hydrolysis of adenosine triphospate to the proteintubule interface, propelling the molecule forward. Hess compares it to a car (kinesin) stuck in mud (tubulin). Anyone who has ever faced this situation knows how delicately the coupling must be managed, by engaging the clutch to just the right degree. Too much and the wheel just spins: the bond snaps. Too little, and the wheels coupling to the engine is insufficient to generate movement. The optimal point is found where the wheelmud adhesion is just about to cease.
Using the response Bell described, Hess shows that as the load on a bond is increased, the transfer of impulse across the bond has a peak. The position of this peak depends on the distance to the transition state for bond rupture along the reaction coordinate. In other words, here is a design criterion for the ideal molecular machine that transfers energy during reversible binding: the bond should be just strong enough to be likely to survive during the power stroke. Its much the same issue as the architects aim to optimise the strength of components so that they neither fail nor overcompensate and waste material except that for chemical bonds failure is a statistical matter, contingent on fluctuations.
In biology, as in architecture, loads are often shared between many components, spaced so that the force on each does not exceed its individual capacity. Thats the case, for example, in muscle tissue, with many bonds between myosin motor proteins and their actin filament anchors. If some bonds break, they can be repaired without failure of the whole structure. But Hess reasons that nature will try to avoid the high metabolic overhead of repair, and that its structures will therefore evolve towards the point where each bond is loaded with the same optimal force as for single unions.
Its hard to test if this is really so, not least because evolution must juggle many constraints and because mechanical forces are rarely constant or equally shared. However, Hess shows that for cardiac muscle tissue, where the various parameters of the equations (such as distance to the transition state) have been measured, the optimal force predicted in this model is roughly equal to the average force that real cardiac tissue typically experiences. Similarly, the maximal power output measured for the kinesintubulin couple occurs at about the value calculated to be optimal. So Hess argues that biomolecular machinery does seem to have evolved to satisfy this fundamental physical constraint. For the designers of synthetic molecular machines, the message is that not all weak bonds are alike.
1 G I Bell, Science, 1978, 200, 618 (DOI: 10.1126/science.347575)
KEYWORDS: biochemistry; biophysics; chemistry; perpetualmotion; stringtheory
posted on 11/30/2012 6:10:32 PM PST
To: 6SJ7; AdmSmith; AFPhys; Arkinsaw; allmost; aristotleman; autumnraine; Beowulf; Bones75; BroJoeK; ...
posted on 11/30/2012 8:14:07 PM PST
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson