What’s so unreal about her is that she probably would have revolutionised solar power if she stayed in that area. Brilliant. Destined to make a big difference
let us give a big salute to our beloved Darwin too for paving the way for wonderful scientists like Francis Arnold....it is high time a global investment is ensured to take up such great researches in evolutionary biology esp in the light of thee Covid19 outbreak...virology should have a strict evolutionary orientation...
Is t here currently any research on creating designer proteins/ enzymes. By which I mean using AI AND SUPERCOMPUTERS to create enzymes that don't exist in nature. These could be used for example break down PFAs.
I'm in China,it's sort of illegal for us to use RUclips, and most people don't have the access. it's such a insightful and inspiring video, it would be nice if more people can see it. thinks!
Brilliant. Try again, fail again, fail better harnessed as a portal into a whole new chemistry of life, I suspect frances Arnold will be back in Stokholm ere to long.
4:00 "Biology is great, but it can't do what I can do."(?) Let's not forget, biology and chemistry created you, silly. I'm just saying, it's the more impressive thing.
I compliment your work however as an engineer why are you not looking at the Crux of the problem you're part of the cog of the problem I understand you have a career a life a reality but you do realize you can change that reality in a instant, right? So which reality have you discovered? there's so many out there... for all of you, the natural world doesn't really need anybody's help however continue on as part of the cog of the problem and not the solution but we all understand you're driven by your academic nature to fix things remember to fix something you need to know what the actual problem really is, not a Band-Aid, especially in biochemistry
Fascinating! I don't mean to take _anything_ away from this excellent work, but I'm amazed that such brilliant people have so much naive faith in evolution. At 4:28 it's acknowledged that enzymes are *so well designed.* 11:09 _"Imagine just a single protein a few hundred amino acids long, you've got twenty amino acids to work with. That's a really big space of possible sequences. ... It's a really _*_big_*_ number. And, it's mostly empty. ... So how do you search a space of enzymes that's bigger than you can even begin to comprehend and mostly empty?"_ Good question, but an even better question would be, how did _"nature"_ find the original enzymes? Oh sure, we know a mutation or two can wobble around an _existing_ enzyme and change its function slightly, as you've said and demonstrated. But that _"really big"_ space of 20^450 (or 10^585) permutations is, as you said, well beyond astronomically large. A few billion years just won't cut it. A little math, with assumptions very favorable to evolution, will easily show that _"nature"_ couldn't have found _any_ of those enzymes in a trillion trillion trillion trillion years. Seriously. Make some assumptions and do some math.
The _"assumptions"_ I was suggesting, @@bouncycastle955, would go something like this: Assume you have such an enormous population of organisms that it's in equilibrium with a trillion reproductions and a trillion deaths per day. And assume _every_ reproduction has mutations that give it a _unique_ protein candidate across all cases. You have to make assumptions to do some hypothetical math to test out how possible it might be to evolve a new protein. These assumptions are _absurd_ but extremely in evolution's favor. So start with those assumptions and figure how long it might take to search the author's _"mostly empty"_ space to find a small functional protein that would benefit the organism. How long? A billion years? Oh no! I typically come up with a trillion trillion trillion years. Am I making an error? What specifically is _"my problem"?_
@@KenJackson_US several. But consider this: when we can't figure out how to rationally design a protein, we use directed evolution. How is that possible if it would even take a decade, let alone longer periods of time?
@@bouncycastle955: _"... , we use directed evolution."_ You and I are talking about two very different things. I'm examining how nature could have _ever_ found _even one_ protein by unguided undirected evolution. There are hundreds of thousands of proteins cataloged in the various protein databases. If all of today's life evolved from the mythical LUCA microbe (as is foolishly taught even today), then _all_ of those evolved along the way. Do you think that's remotely possible?
@@KenJackson_US that's your problem, you think we're talking about different things, we aren't. Of course if you think all of those sequences evolved independently that seems like a lot, but the reality is that all of the hundreds of thousands of proteins out there (hilariously conservative by the way) there are only a few dozen protein families and they all use common folds. We don't know that all proteins are related, and probably they aren't, but my money is on there only be a handful of common ancestors. That's the point. Once we have a scaffold, we can evolve it to perform countless completely unrelated reactions. If we were constantly searching around random sequence space, of course that would be difficult, but as soon as you have something reasonably stable, you can adapt it over and over and over which is what we see life doing even today. You know we've observed stable scaffolds arising from previously noncoding sequences of DNA, right? It's not common but it happens.
The way you implement the Noble ideas into society is the prize
- How it benefits mankind.
It's a new world to run in the speed of light! Thanks for Dr.Frances Armold's efforts!
Congratulations for the historical achievement 😍😍😍
Instablaster...
Madam i want to be your student.
Thank you mam for your valuable lectures, regards from India 💐
congratulations , unbelievable, and it is the only near ever possible hopes in the future
What’s so unreal about her is that she probably would have revolutionised solar power if she stayed in that area. Brilliant. Destined to make a big difference
let us give a big salute to our beloved Darwin too for paving the way for wonderful scientists like Francis Arnold....it is high time a global investment is ensured to take up such great researches in evolutionary biology esp in the light of thee Covid19 outbreak...virology should have a strict evolutionary orientation...
Congratulations, I am diehard lover of GENETICS
oh wow, what a inspiring and amazing talk about biocatalysis.
Is t here currently any research on creating designer proteins/ enzymes. By which I mean using AI AND SUPERCOMPUTERS to create enzymes that don't exist in nature. These could be used for example break down PFAs.
I asked this question before I watched this video. She talked about designer enzymes
Congratulations Frances Arnold
may i reupload this video to a nonprofit site bilibili? I'll attach the link below
Hi, is it not possible for you to embed this RUclips video, or simply put the link to it on your site? Best wishes
I'm in China,it's sort of illegal for us to use RUclips, and most people don't have the access. it's such a insightful and inspiring video, it would be nice if more people can see it.
thinks!
@@程睿滢 哈哈，恭喜up主喜提精彩视频。
不好意思，我看错了，他不让你公开，唉，没办法，版权意识很强
Exciting!
Congratulation Madam
Awesome talk
intresting
Congratulations
Congratulation wonderful invention
Brilliant research that shows intelligent design.
What a fatuous remark for a lecture demonstrating work that would not be possible if biological evolution of new protein functions was not a reality.
BS.human garbage cant understand science
ruclips.net/video/05r-FLGtsEQ/видео.html: "[The protein space] is bigger the United States national debt." Great sense of humour. Congratulations !
👏👏👏
Wow
29:51 she just @vsauce 'd us
Wake up
Pay Attention Evolutionism!
Fuck i did not even know i was sleeping
Sir or Madam The word Fuck is not called for in this situation - I am sorry I upset you I will watch my mouth if you watch yours.
Brilliant. Try again, fail again, fail better harnessed as a portal into a whole new chemistry of life, I suspect frances Arnold will be back in Stokholm ere to long.
Very cunning!
playing with chemistry and calling it evolution..its reaction.
🤗👍👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
4:00
"Biology is great, but it can't do what I can do."(?)
Let's not forget, biology and chemistry created you, silly.
I'm just saying, it's the more impressive thing.
She was quoting chemists versus her stance on bio-chemistry relations, so hard chemistry versus bioconversion
I compliment your work however as an engineer why are you not looking at the Crux of the problem you're part of the cog of the problem I understand you have a career a life a reality but you do realize you can change that reality in a instant, right?
So which reality have you discovered?
there's so many out there...
for all of you, the natural world doesn't really need anybody's help
however continue on as part of the cog of the problem and not the solution but we all understand you're driven by your academic nature to fix things remember to fix something you need to know what the actual problem really is, not a Band-Aid, especially in biochemistry
shut the fuck up you hobo
@@lennycarlson1178 XDDDDD
You sound like a messy, troubled engineer. Maybe reorganize ur thoughts first before making more messes instead of work?
Fascinating! I don't mean to take _anything_ away from this excellent work, but I'm amazed that such brilliant people have so much naive faith in evolution. At 4:28 it's acknowledged that enzymes are *so well designed.*
11:09 _"Imagine just a single protein a few hundred amino acids long, you've got twenty amino acids to work with. That's a really big space of possible sequences. ... It's a really _*_big_*_ number. And, it's mostly empty. ... So how do you search a space of enzymes that's bigger than you can even begin to comprehend and mostly empty?"_
Good question, but an even better question would be, how did _"nature"_ find the original enzymes? Oh sure, we know a mutation or two can wobble around an _existing_ enzyme and change its function slightly, as you've said and demonstrated. But that _"really big"_ space of 20^450 (or 10^585) permutations is, as you said, well beyond astronomically large. A few billion years just won't cut it.
A little math, with assumptions very favorable to evolution, will easily show that _"nature"_ couldn't have found _any_ of those enzymes in a trillion trillion trillion trillion years. Seriously. Make some assumptions and do some math.
Your final sentence is your entire problem.
The _"assumptions"_ I was suggesting, @@bouncycastle955, would go something like this: Assume you have such an enormous population of organisms that it's in equilibrium with a trillion reproductions and a trillion deaths per day. And assume _every_ reproduction has mutations that give it a _unique_ protein candidate across all cases.
You have to make assumptions to do some hypothetical math to test out how possible it might be to evolve a new protein. These assumptions are _absurd_ but extremely in evolution's favor.
So start with those assumptions and figure how long it might take to search the author's _"mostly empty"_ space to find a small functional protein that would benefit the organism. How long? A billion years?
Oh no! I typically come up with a trillion trillion trillion years. Am I making an error? What specifically is _"my problem"?_
@@KenJackson_US several. But consider this: when we can't figure out how to rationally design a protein, we use directed evolution. How is that possible if it would even take a decade, let alone longer periods of time?
@@bouncycastle955: _"... , we use directed evolution."_
You and I are talking about two very different things.
I'm examining how nature could have _ever_ found _even one_ protein by unguided undirected evolution. There are hundreds of thousands of proteins cataloged in the various protein databases. If all of today's life evolved from the mythical LUCA microbe (as is foolishly taught even today), then _all_ of those evolved along the way.
Do you think that's remotely possible?
@@KenJackson_US that's your problem, you think we're talking about different things, we aren't. Of course if you think all of those sequences evolved independently that seems like a lot, but the reality is that all of the hundreds of thousands of proteins out there (hilariously conservative by the way) there are only a few dozen protein families and they all use common folds. We don't know that all proteins are related, and probably they aren't, but my money is on there only be a handful of common ancestors. That's the point. Once we have a scaffold, we can evolve it to perform countless completely unrelated reactions. If we were constantly searching around random sequence space, of course that would be difficult, but as soon as you have something reasonably stable, you can adapt it over and over and over which is what we see life doing even today.
You know we've observed stable scaffolds arising from previously noncoding sequences of DNA, right? It's not common but it happens.