Corante

About this Author
Derek Lowe
Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: derekb.lowe@gmail.com Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Emolecules
ChemSpider
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
PubChem
Not Voodoo
DailyMed
Druglib
Clinicaltrials.gov

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
MedChem Buzz
Kilomentor
On Pharma
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
One in Ten Thousand
Electron Pusher
Periodic Tabloid
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blog
Propter Doc
Chemiotics II
The Chemical Notebook
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
Chirality
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
ChemBark
Drug Discovery Opinion
Realizations in Biostatistics
Chemjobber
Pharmalot
WSJ Health Blog
ChemSpider Blog
Pharmagossip
Med-Chemist
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Useful Chemistry
Chiral Jones
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
SimBioSys
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Totally Synthetic
Fragment Literature
The F- Blog
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Carbon-Based Curiosities
Experimental Error
Business|Bytes|Genes|Molecules
Eye on FDA
Sigma-Aldrich ChemBlogs
Chemical Forums
Depth-First
Symyx Blog
P212121
ChemCafe
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa


Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
FuturePundit
Aetiology
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Sciencebase
Pharyngula
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
A Scientist's Life
Speculist
Cosmic Variance
The Capsule
Zeroth Order Approximation
Biology News Net


Medical Blogs
Med Tech Sentinel
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
GruntDoc
The Health Care Blog
Respectful Insolence
Black Triangle
Diabetes Mine


Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
Arnold Kling
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem
The Stalwart


Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Tinkerty Tonk
Instapundit
Megan McArdle
Mickey Kaus
Colby Cosh
Alien Corn
No Watermelons


Belles Lettres
Two Blowhards
Critical Mass
Arts and Letters Daily
God of the Machine
Armavirumque
About Last Night
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« A Week in the Life | Main | Clay Lies Still, But Blood's A Rover »

August 15, 2004

FullCell 1.0?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Reader Maynard Handley, in a comment to the most recent post below, asks:

". . .how far are we from doing at least a substantial fraction of this stuff in silico? I've read that some amazing computational models of full cells now exist, but even so, this author didn't expect that drugs could be usefully tested computationally until 2030 which seems awfully far out."

I don't know the article that he's referring to, but "awfully far out" pretty much sums up my reaction, too. I just don't think we have enough data to do any real whole-cell modeling yet. It's coming, and perhaps for a few very well-worked-out subsystems we could do it now, but I'm sceptical even of that.

A few days reading the current cell biology literature will illustrate the problem. All sorts of proteins are found, all the time, to be players in systems that no one suspected them of being involved it. Kinases are found to phosphorylate things that no one had seen them do before, lipases are found to accept substrates that no one had realized they could. A given signaling peptide is gradually found to have more uses than a Swiss army knife. We don't even really understand the basic mechanisms (like G-protein-coupled receptor signaling) enough to model them to any useful level.

The process of finding these things out doesn't seem like it's going to end soon, and there have to be many fundamental surprises waiting for us. Modeling the system in their absence is going to be risky - interesting, no doubt, and potentially lucrative (if you find a useful approximation), but risky. It's going to take some pretty convincing stuff for the drug industry to ever depend on it.

And all of this applies to single cells, which come in, naturally, an uncounted variety, each with its own peculiarities, the great majority of which we don't have any clue about. And then you come to the interactions between cells, which are highly significant and (in many ways) a closed book to us at present. If we knew more about these things, we'd be able, for example, to culture human cell lines that acted just like their primary tissue progenitors - but we can't do it, not yet.

No, although I have every belief that these things are susceptible to modeling, I just don't think we'll see it (on a useful scale) any time soon. Over the next twenty years, I'd expect to have some of the easier-to-handle cellular subsystems worked out to give robust in silico treatments, but a whole cell? And all the types of whole cells? Much longer than that. More than that I can't guess.

Comments (3) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: In Silico


COMMENTS

1. Ron on August 16, 2004 3:30 PM writes...

Derek, if I read you right -- and trust me, I am the lamest of the lay -- would it not be fair to say that cellular biochemistry gets even more complicated the more we learn about it?

Permalink to Comment

2. otey on August 16, 2004 4:05 PM writes...

I would love to hear you discuss the "gap" between knowing the DNA for a disease and how you use that information in your lab to design a drug for that disease. How much of a leg-up does knowing the DNA really give you when designing a drug?

You hear all this talk about DNA discoveries, but the rubber doesn't seem to meet the road. Or am I just beimg callow and impatient?

Permalink to Comment

3. Eric Pobirs on August 31, 2004 9:30 AM writes...

This has been seen in other fields, too. The modeling is useful but primarily for pointing out the massive gaps to be filled and if you're really having a good day show you which gap might be the next preferred target.

Permalink to Comment


EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Academia and Industry, Suing Each Other
Let's Start Off the Meeting With An Ad, OK?
The Academic-Industrial Collaboration in Drug Discovery Panel: Today
Glass Structure, Atom by Atom
How the Andrulis Paper Got Published
AstraZeneca in Waltham
Fluorine NMR: Why Not?
AstraZeneca Layoffs and Closings