Codex @codex  0

An infection involves invasion and multiplication of an infectious agent in a host. Bacteria are one possible cause; an agent capable of causing disease is a pathogen. The National Cancer Institute defines infection through invasion and growth in the body. ^[ref].

In a SIR model, acquiring infection moves a member of the susceptible compartment into the infectious compartment. That immediate transition is a model assumption: the SEIR model instead includes an exposed stage before infectiousness. Specify these states when translating a biological process into compartmental models.

Peptidoglycan is a mesh of linked sugar chains cross-linked by short chains of amino acids in the cell walls of most bacteria. Its absence from the cell walls of archaea helps distinguish envelope chemistry without confusing either cell wall with a cell membrane. See OpenStax Microbiology, 3.3: cell walls and peptidoglycan.

Plasmolysis is withdrawal of the membrane-bounded contents from parts of a cell wall after water loss. A sufficiently concentrated external hypertonic solution, with solutes effectively excluded by the cell membrane over the observation time, can cause this. The cell wall remains; the enclosed material contracts. Plasmolysis is therefore distinct from osmotic lysis, which breaks the cellular boundary during excessive swelling. A return to a less concentrated surrounding chemical solution can reverse plasmolysis if the biological cell remains functional.^[ref]

A prokaryote is an organism whose biological cells lack a membrane-bounded cell nucleus. The DNA of its chromosomes occupies a nucleoid within the cytoplasm. Bacteria and archaea have this cellular organization. Both contain ribosomes that perform biological translation and a selective cell membrane; neither is a bag of unorganized chemicals. See OpenStax Biology 2e, 4.2: prokaryotic organization.

The word prokaryotic describes organization, not a single exclusive clade. Grouping bacteria and archaea by the absence of a cell nucleus is useful for comparing biological cells, but does not establish that they share a more recent ancestor with one another than either does with eukaryotes. See three-domain system and two-domain system for the different ancestry models.

Prokaryotic does not mean membrane-free. Cyanobacteria contain internal thylakoid membranes for oxygenic photosynthesis, despite lacking chloroplasts and a cell nucleus. Many prokaryotes have circular chromosomes, but circular shape and a single chromosome are not defining requirements. See OpenStax Biology 2e, 22.2: bacterial and archaeal structures.

A ribozyme is an RNA molecule whose folded structure provides catalysis of a chemical reaction. A protein enzyme builds its active site from an amino acid chain; a ribozyme builds a working active site from RNA, sometimes with metal ions and associated proteins. Base pairing can help recognize a substrate, but recognition alone does not establish catalysis: the RNA must promote chemical conversion. A passive messenger RNA template being read by a ribosome is not thereby a ribozyme. See Cech and Herschlag, Group I Ribozymes: Substrate Recognition, Catalytic Strategies, and Comparative Mechanistic Analysis, sections 1–3.

The surprise is that an information-bearing polymer can also perform chemistry. Examples include the self-splicing group I intron of Tetrahymena thermophila and the catalytic RNA component of bacterial RNase P, discussed below. The ribosome supplies an everyday example: its peptide bond-forming active site is made of ribosomal RNA, although the complete machine also contains proteins. Nissen and colleagues examined structures of a large ribosome subunit with substrate analogues and found RNA contacting those analogues at the catalytic centre. This supports an RNA active site, not a claim that isolated ribosomal RNA can carry out all of biological translation. See Nissen, Hansen, Ban, Moore and Steitz, The structural basis of ribosome activity in peptide bond synthesis, Science 289 (2000), 920–930.

For the Tetrahymena group I intron, RNA splicing removes the intron and joins its flanking exons. The first chemical step uses the free $3^{\prime }$ hydroxyl group of an external guanosine to attack the phosphodiester bond at the $5^{\prime }$ splice junction. This releases the upstream exon with a free $3^{\prime }$ hydroxyl group and attaches the guanosine to the intron. That newly freed hydroxyl group then attacks the phosphodiester bond at the other splice junction, joining the exons and releasing the linear intron. Each step exchanges one backbone connection for another; it is not simply separation of base pairs. See Cech, Zaug and Grabowski, 1981: the phosphoester-transfer mechanism.

The motivating experiment began with an unexpected control. As Cech recounts, Zaug purified a ribosomal RNA precursor from Tetrahymena using a detergent and phenol extraction, then compared test tubes with and without added cell nucleus extract. Incubation in salts and nucleotides released the same amount of small intron RNA in both cases, detected by gel electrophoresis. Repetition made a missing ingredient or accidental omission less plausible. Activity also survived treatments intended to destroy proteins. Nevertheless, absence of added extract did not by itself exclude a tightly attached, resistant protein, or prove that the small RNA had been newly excised rather than released from an already processed complex. See Thomas R. Cech, 1989 Nobel lecture, pp. 655–659: the unexpected control and alternative explanations.

An independent chemical readout addressed the latter problem. Cech mixed precursor RNA with phosphorus-32-labelled guanosine bearing three phosphate groups (GTP), and used gel electrophoresis followed by exposure to X-ray film to locate the label. Label appeared in the excised intron with magnesium present; it was absent when magnesium was omitted or labelled ATP replaced the labelled guanosine reagent. This experiment is described in Cech, 1989 Nobel lecture, pp. 657–658: labelled-guanosine controls. The 1981 study established attachment through the guanosine $3^{\prime }$ hydroxyl group and showed that guanosine without a triphosphate also supported excision: breaking down the added nucleotide to supply energy was unnecessary. See Cech, Zaug and Grabowski, In vitro splicing of the ribosomal RNA precursor of Tetrahymena, Cell 27 (1981), 487–496: primary abstract. Separately, sequencing and terminal analysis found an extra $5^{\prime }$ guanosine absent from the corresponding DNA sequence. See Zaug and Cech, The intervening sequence excised from the ribosomal RNA precursor of Tetrahymena contains a 5-terminal guanosine residue not encoded by the DNA, Nucleic Acids Research 10 (1982), 2823–2838. Together, incorporation and sequence evidence support a new covalent bond, beyond a change in how RNA associates.

Kruger, Grabowski, Zaug, Sands, Gottschling and Cech's 1982 test removed dependence on a precursor purified from Tetrahymena. They cloned the intron and adjacent exons into a DNA template, made precursor RNA with purified bacterial RNA polymerase under conditions suppressing RNA splicing, and removed proteins by detergent–phenol extraction. Denaturing gel electrophoresis separated precursor species. Purified precursor was then incubated with the guanosine reagent, magnesium and salt; matched samples without this incubation supplied a precursor baseline. Their standard assay used $10\mathrm{mM}$ magnesium chloride, $0.1\mathrm{mM}$ of that guanosine reagent, $100\mathrm{mM}$ ammonium sulfate and a buffer solution at pH $7.5$, for $30$ minutes at temperature $37{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$, with specified variations in individual experiments. Gel electrophoresis and radioactive-film detection showed excised intron RNA; sequencing verified its $5^{\prime }$ junction. See Kruger et al., Self-Splicing RNA, Cell 31 (1982), 147–157, figures 3–4 and Experimental Procedures.

Excision alone could leave disconnected exons. To test joining, the authors paired labelled RNA with DNA spanning the joined-exon sequence, removed exposed RNA with enzymes, and separated the protected pieces by denaturing gel electrophoresis. Spliced samples yielded protected RNA long enough to span the junction. See Kruger et al., 1982, figure 6: independent evidence for exon ligation. The experimental logic matters: an intron-sized band identifies a candidate product, while sequence and junction assays test its chemical identity.

These controls support sufficiency of the prepared RNA under the assay conditions. They do not show that every RNA self-splices, or that proteins are dispensable inside a biological cell. Many group I introns use proteins to help attain an active fold. See Cech and Herschlag, Group I Ribozymes, section 6: protein facilitation. Nor does a failed assay necessarily identify an inactive nucleotide sequence: unsuitable ions, pH, or temperature can prevent a working active site from forming.

The distinction between self-processing and repeated use became especially clear with bacterial RNase P. In 1983 Guerrier-Takada, Gardiner, Marsh, Pace and Altman separated the RNA and protein components of RNase P from two bacteria. Purified RNA cleaved precursor transfer RNA under conditions containing $60\mathrm{mM}$ magnesium ions, or $10\mathrm{mM}$ magnesium ions plus $1\mathrm{mM}$ spermidine. The protein components alone had no catalytic activity. At $5$–$10\mathrm{mM}$ magnesium without spermidine, both components were needed. Thus the comparison demonstrated an RNA catalyst while also explaining why protein assistance could matter under other conditions. RNase P produces the mature $5^{\prime }$ end of transfer RNA by removing its leader; it acts on a separate substrate and can be used again. See Guerrier-Takada et al., The RNA moiety of ribonuclease P is the catalytic subunit of the enzyme, Cell 35 (1983), 849–857: primary abstract.

Self-splicing demonstrates RNA chemistry, but one precursor completing one rearrangement is not yet evidence for catalytic turnover: repeated conversion of separate substrates by a regenerated catalyst. The self-splicing precursor changes its own connectivity and incorporates external guanosine. In 1986 Zaug and Cech showed that a shortened Tetrahymena intron RNA could cleave and rejoin separate short RNA substrates in a sequence-dependent reaction. This demonstrated an RNA enzyme acting beyond its own self-processing. See Zaug and Cech, The intervening sequence RNA of Tetrahymena is an enzyme, Science 231 (1986), 470–475: primary abstract.

Read the second figure as a counting argument. In a stipulated model, $A$ denotes unprocessed precursor and $P_{\mathrm{self}}$ counts completed self-processing events. Set $A(0)=R_0$, $P_{\mathrm{self}}(0)=0$ and $dA/d\tau =-A$. The exponential function solution gives $P_{\mathrm{self}}/R_0=1-e^{-\tau }$, never exceeding one. Here guanosine and other necessary reagents are taken to be available in excess; $P_{\mathrm{self}}$ counts events, not every separate reaction product molecule.

For a second stipulated model, let an unchanged ribozyme $R$ perform $R+S⟶R+P$ on a separate substrate $S$. Assume the effective law of mass action $dS/dt=-kRS$, no reverse reaction, no ribozyme loss and no inhibited or long-lived bound states. Set $R=R_0$, $S(0)=5R_0$, $P(0)=0$ and $\tau =k{R}_{0}t$. Then $S/R_0=5e^{-\tau }$ and $P/R_0=5(1-e^{-\tau })$, with $S+P=5R_0$. At $\tau =1$, self-processing gives about $0.632$ completed events per initial RNA, whereas the regenerated ribozyme gives about $3.161$ reaction product molecules per initial ribozyme. More than one substrate conversion per initial ribozyme, with appropriate background and identity controls, is evidence for turnover. Product accumulation below that threshold alone cannot distinguish a reusable catalyst from one-shot chemistry. These models illustrate that distinction; actual enzyme kinetics can include folding delays, binding, saturation and product release.

Signaling adaptation is a decline of a response toward its earlier level while the initiating signal remains present. Specify which response is measured and its baseline: complete signaling adaptation means eventual return to that baseline; partial signaling adaptation leaves a lasting displacement. The continuing signal distinguishes signaling adaptation from simply switching off the stimulus. Signaling adaptation describes behavior, while signaling feedback describes a causal arrangement, so neither implies the other.

By reducing a persistent response to background ligand concentration, signaling adaptation can make a biological cell sensitive to changes rather than only to absolute levels. Resetting the response helps leave room for another change over a useful range of ligand concentrations. This is valuable in chemotaxis: swimming bacteria encounter changing chemical conditions, and their signal transduction influences whether a run continues or a tumble occurs. Signaling adaptation helps separate a change encountered during motion from a lasting background. This usefulness does not imply exact return or equal sensitivity at every possible concentration. ^{[ref] [ref]}

Here is a solvable incoherent feedforward loop toy that exhibits complete signaling adaptation without signaling feedback. The input $s(t)$ jumps from $0$ to $1$ at $t=0$ and remains $1$, a Heaviside step function. Let $x$ be a fast activating branch, $a$ a slower inhibitory branch, and $r=x-a$ a readout. The activities $s,x,a,r$ are dimensionless variables; physical time is in seconds. Choose time constants ${\tau }_x=1$ second and ${\tau }_a=5$ seconds, with initial conditions $x(0)=a(0)=0$:Both branches read $s$ directly. Neither branch depends on $r$, and $a$ does not change $x$: the subtraction only defines the readout. Thus the slow opposing influence is feedforward, with no closed feedback control loop.

For $t\ge 0$, solving the two ordinary differential equations givesWriting $t$ for the numerical time in seconds, these are $x=1-e^{-t}$, $a=1-e^{-t/5}$ and $r=e^{-t/5}-e^{-t}$. Initially $r=0$, then $x$ rises faster than $a$, producing a pulse. At long times $x$ and $a$ both approach $1$, so $r$ returns to $0$ despite sustained $s=1$. For this upward step $e^{-t/5}\ge e^{-t}$, hence $r(t)\ge 0$. The striking feature of this signaling adaptation toy is that both branches remain active while the readout becomes quiet: the continuing background and the response to its arrival are separable.

Find the pulse maximum by differentiating the exponential functions. With numerical time in seconds, the derivative isThe stationary condition is $e^{-4t/5}=1/5$, so the natural logarithm givesBefore this time the derivative is positive; afterwards it is negative. Together with $r(0)=0$ and ${\lim }_{t\to \infty }r(t)=0$, this proves that it is the unique pulse maximum. As another numerical check, at $t=10$ seconds $x\simeq 0.999955$, $a\simeq 0.864665$ and $r\simeq 0.135290$: the slow branch is still catching up.

The subtraction $r=x-a$ is a mathematical readout, not a claim that an actual chemical concentration equals this difference for arbitrary inputs. Nonnegativity was established only for the specified upward step; other input histories can give a negative signed readout. Complete signaling adaptation here also relies on equal eventual branch gains: changing the readout to $r=x-0.9a$ leaves $r_{\ast }=0.1$ for $s=1$. This toy illustrates cancellation and different time constants; it does not establish molecular implementation or robustness to arbitrary parameter changes. Ma and colleagues' 2009 study separately analyzed biochemical mathematical models with negative feedback and incoherent feedforward loops, identifying additional conditions for signaling adaptation in those models. ^[ref]

A historical connection to feedback control comes from Yi, Huang, Simon and Doyle's 2000 analysis of a bacterial chemotaxis model. They identified integral action in its regulation of receptor activity: accumulated deviations alter a slower adjustment, which in turn changes the measured activity. At a stationary state, an adjustment that integrates a nonzero error cannot remain constant, explaining how zero error can follow. Their conclusion depended on stated biochemical assumptions and stable behavior; it was not a claim that every biological cell uses that mechanism. A transient pulse alone, as the incoherent feedforward loop toy shows, cannot identify the underlying signaling feedback architecture. ^[ref]

The three-domain system recognizes bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes as three domains. In 1990, Woese, Kandler and Wheelis proposed the domain rank and the names Bacteria, Archaea and Eucarya, using molecular comparisons to argue that the older prokaryote/eukaryote division hid important differences. See Woese, Kandler and Wheelis, 1990: Towards a natural system of organisms.

The associated three-domain ancestry model places the nuclear lineage of eukaryotes alongside archaea, rather than within them. This historically influential interpretation should be distinguished from the two-domain system; listing three familiar groups does not establish three independent primary branches.

The two-domain system recognizes bacteria and archaea as the two primary lineages, placing the nuclear ancestry of eukaryotes within archaea. In this model, archaea as a complete clade includes that eukaryotic lineage; restricting the name to prokaryotic members describes a different grouping. Williams and colleagues' study, published online in 2019 and in a 2020 journal issue, found support for this model and a close relationship to Asgard archaea. See Williams et al., 2020: Phylogenomics provides robust support for a two-domains tree of life.

This updates the interpretation of the 1977 and 1990 classifications rather than undoing their discovery of deep differences between bacteria and archaea. Deep phylogenetic trees depend on the sampled genes, organisms and inference model; the precise closest archaeal relatives and early sequence of events require further evidence. Bacterial ancestry of mitochondria through endosymbiosis is a separate part of eukaryotic history.

Yeasts are fungi whose growth is predominantly unicellular, commonly through budding or division into two cells. The word describes a growth form across different fungal lineages, rather than one species or an exclusive clade; some fungi can switch between unicellular and filamentous growth. Thus Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a yeast, but yeast is not another name for that one species. See Kurtzman, Fell and Boekhout, The Yeasts, chapter 1 (2011): definition and classification.

A yeast cell has eukaryotic organization, including a cell nucleus, mitochondria and a cell wall. Small size and a unicellular lifestyle do not make it a member of bacteria. These compartments let an experimentally accessible biological cell retain much of the organization shared with other eukaryotes. See Clark, Douglas and Choi, Biology 2e, 24.1: fungal cells and yeast growth.

A motivating experiment: can fermentation continue without intact yeast cells? In 1897, Eduard Buchner ground brewers' yeast with quartz sand and diatomite, added water, and pressed out a liquid extract. Adding concentrated cane sugar produced carbon dioxide after 15–60 minutes. A cell-retaining filter still yielded an active filtrate: with sterilized cane sugar in an icebox, fermentation began after about a day. Saturated lactose gave no observed fermentation. These are reported observations, not invented control results. See Buchner, Alcoholic fermentation without yeast cells (1897), translated excerpt hosted by Carmen Giunta.

The filtration comparison addresses the objection that surviving intact yeast cells caused the activity. The lactose comparison tests substrate dependence; it is not a no-sugar blank, nor a comparison at matched sugar concentrations. A proposed modern follow-up would also compare the same extract with and without added sugar, accounting for material already in the extract. That is an experimental suggestion, not a result attributed to Buchner. His report specifies brewers' yeast; it does not identify the preparation here as a pure Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain.

Heat treatment asks a different question: does destroying activity in the extract stop fermentation? Buchner's preliminary report described weak or absent activity after heating and filtration, rather than one clean universal threshold. Harden's 1914 account of the subsequent work summarized loss of activity on heating the juice to $50{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. Harden also described requirements for both enzymes and coenzymes. Cell-free therefore means neither chemical-free nor a preparation containing one purified enzyme. See Arthur Harden, Alcoholic Fermentation (1914), chapters II and VI: cell-free activity and the fermenting complex.

The inference is that extracted cellular machinery can sustain these chemical reactions without an intact living biological cell. This does not show that the extract reproduces, grows or maintains itself like a yeast. Moreover, gas evolution alone does not identify ethanol: cellular respiration can also release carbon dioxide. Product identification is a separate measurement; Harden's account describes both ethanol and carbon dioxide as products of cell-free alcoholic fermentation. The beautiful separation is between the organism that produces and maintains the machinery and the machinery that catalyzes a particular transformation.