FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2073147319> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2073147319 endingPage "R395" @default.
• W2073147319 startingPage "R395" @default.
• W2073147319 abstract "A recent editorial [1Editorial In pursuit of systems.Nature. 2005; 435: 1Google Scholar] in Nature suggested that ‘systems biology’ is the key to answering that old chestnut and cause of consternation to pet owners the World over: the difference between a live cat and a dead one. The implication, perhaps unintended, might be encapsulated thus (usual apologies to Pope):Nature and Nature’s lawslay hid in night;God said, Let Systems Biology be!and all was light To what extent might this be justified? My impression is that ‘traditional’ biology has provided us with a fair understanding of what makes a ‘live cat’, though clearly there is still a lot we do not understand. Faced with the raw genome sequences of cat and dog, for example, I don’t think we could yet get very far in predicting which would encode the willing subject of Pavlov’s famous experiment, and which the usual adornment of the witch’s broom. But has systems biology yet added significantly to the rich canon of knowledge derived from the last two hundred years’ biology research? To my mind, the jury is very much out. What precisely is ‘systems biology’? Not to be confused with the well-established field of systems neurobiology — which simply refers to studies of multi-neuron systems, in contrast to studies that focus on properties of single neurons — systems biology is a child of genomics. A characteristic feature is the ‘top-down’ approach — faced with large datasets generated by genomic analyses, systems biologists aim to gain insights by considering the ‘system’ as a whole, often represented in a rather abstract way as a system of interacting components, shorn so far as possible from unattractive details. As Nature’s leader writer says [1Editorial In pursuit of systems.Nature. 2005; 435: 1Google Scholar]: “Properties such as robustness and evolvability, essential characteristics of life, then emerge from the topology of biological networks, independent of the constituents from which they are built.” There are examples of general, constituent- independent laws in biology, of course, but not many [2North G. Biophysics and the place of theory in biology.Curr. Biol. 2003; 13: R719-R720Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar]. To my mind, one of the key lessons of biology’s history is that, for those specific systems we understand best — such as the phage lambda and its genetic switch [3Ptashne M. 2004Google Scholar] or haemoglobin and its cooperative oxygen binding — that understanding has come from a very close attention to the details of the system’s components. Much of biology can be considered in terms of components and their interactions within some system: from the atoms that make up a protein and its molecular environment to the species that make up an ecosystem. The question is: what features of the components are required to have an ‘understanding’ of the ‘system’? An assumption has to be that one can simplify — but how much? This issue came up in the 1980s in particular in computational neurobiology: a group of neural network modellers made great play of the way you could simulate certain aspects of ‘learning’ in abstract neural networks based on very simplified components — artificial neurons arranged in some pattern with modifiable connections mimicking plastic synapses of real neural circuits. The neurons gather inputs and give outputs as a function of the total input; the connection strengths are varied according to some rule — a particularly famous version is ‘back propagation’, where the output of the network is compared against some desired output to give an error signal that is propagated back through the network, updating the connections so to reduce the output error. This caused quite a lot of excitement at the time [4North G. A celebration of connectionism.Nature. 1987; 328: 107Crossref PubMed Scopus (7) Google Scholar], but looking back one wonders how much lasting contribution it made. No doubt such approaches are informative — certainly I agree that there are multiple useful levels of understanding how the brain works, not all couched in terms of the cellular nuts and bolts. It is useful to know just what a connection of simple neurons with a learning rule — and the oft-used Hebbian rule has a basis in experimental biology — can do. But obviously it is not sufficient to say we ‘understand’ a real neural circuit, let alone ‘how the brain works’. As Crick [5Crick F. The recent excitement about neural networks.Nature. 1989; 337: 129-132Crossref PubMed Scopus (319) Google Scholar] argued eloquently, for real understanding, you have to consider real neurons and their real properties. This will be a key issue for systems biologists attempting to make their mark — getting it right will make the difference between advancing our understanding of biology as it is, and simply establishing properties of abstract constructs." @default.
• W2073147319 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2073147319 creator A5087995680 @default.
• W2073147319 date "2005-06-01" @default.
• W2073147319 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W2073147319 title "Systems and components in biology" @default.
• W2073147319 cites W1631262764 @default.
• W2073147319 cites W1998385854 @default.
• W2073147319 cites W2003357516 @default.
• W2073147319 cites W2077988858 @default.
• W2073147319 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2005.05.035" @default.
• W2073147319 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15936254" @default.
• W2073147319 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W2073147319 type Work @default.
• W2073147319 sameAs 2073147319 @default.
• W2073147319 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2073147319 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2073147319 hasAuthorship W2073147319A5087995680 @default.
• W2073147319 hasBestOaLocation W20731473191 @default.
• W2073147319 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2073147319 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2073147319 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2073147319 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W2073147319 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W2073147319 hasConcept C26517878 @default.
• W2073147319 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2073147319 hasConceptScore W2073147319C111472728 @default.
• W2073147319 hasConceptScore W2073147319C138885662 @default.
• W2073147319 hasConceptScore W2073147319C15744967 @default.
• W2073147319 hasConceptScore W2073147319C188147891 @default.
• W2073147319 hasConceptScore W2073147319C18903297 @default.
• W2073147319 hasConceptScore W2073147319C26517878 @default.
• W2073147319 hasConceptScore W2073147319C86803240 @default.
• W2073147319 hasIssue "11" @default.
• W2073147319 hasLocation W20731473191 @default.
• W2073147319 hasLocation W20731473192 @default.
• W2073147319 hasOpenAccess W2073147319 @default.
• W2073147319 hasPrimaryLocation W20731473191 @default.
• W2073147319 hasRelatedWork W1572092390 @default.
• W2073147319 hasRelatedWork W1972035101 @default.
• W2073147319 hasRelatedWork W1977390512 @default.
• W2073147319 hasRelatedWork W1990804418 @default.
• W2073147319 hasRelatedWork W2057147895 @default.
• W2073147319 hasRelatedWork W2082860237 @default.
• W2073147319 hasRelatedWork W243161427 @default.
• W2073147319 hasRelatedWork W2586690639 @default.
• W2073147319 hasRelatedWork W2610958064 @default.
• W2073147319 hasRelatedWork W3211742806 @default.
• W2073147319 hasVolume "15" @default.
• W2073147319 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2073147319 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2073147319 magId "2073147319" @default.
• W2073147319 workType "article" @default.