Abstract:We explore the structural similarities in three different languages, first in the protein language whose primary letters are the amino acids, second in the musical language whose primary letters are the notes, and third in the poetry language whose primary letters are the alphabet. For proteins, the non local (secondary) letters are the types of foldings in space (α-helices, β-sheets, etc.); for music, one is dealing with clear-cut repetition units called musical forms and for poems the structure consists of g… Show more
“…[22] and ( [23] p. 90) and follows from the fact that π 2 is not a free group. The group f p is close to π 2 in the sense that the cardinality sequence [1,3,10,51,164,1365,9422,81594, 721305, • • • ] of the cc of subgroups is that of π 2 , up to the higher index 9 that we could reach in our calculations.…”
Section: The Dna-binding Domain Mycmentioning
confidence: 62%
“…The central portion of the protein contains 86 = 30 + 28 + 28 aa decomposed into 3 zinc fingers with the following secondary structure (letter H is for the α-helix segment, letter E is for the β-sheet segment and letter C is for the random coil segment) CCCEECCCCCCCCEECHHHHHHHHHHHHHH CCCEECCCCCCEECHHHHH-HHHHHHHHH CCCEECCCCCCEECHHHHHHHHHHHHHC Taking the former 3-letter chain as the relation of a finitely generated group on 3 letters (and rank 2), we get the cardinality sequence for the cc of its subgroups as [1,3,7,26,112, 717, • • • ], which fits the cardinality sequence of cc of subgroups of the free group F 2 only up to the index 4.…”
Section: The Dna-binding Domain Egr1mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our last papers focused on the relevance of free groups in the encoding of the secondary structure of proteins [2] and in the encoding of tonal music and poetry [3].…”
Transcription factors (TFs) are proteins that recognize specific DNA fragments in order to decode the genome and ensure its optimal functioning. TFs work at the local and global scales by specifying cell type, cell growth and death, cell migration, organization and timely tasks. We investigate the structure of DNA-binding motifs with the theory of finitely generated groups. The DNA ‘word’ in the binding domain—the motif—may be seen as the generator of a finitely generated group Fdna on four letters, the bases A, T, G and C. It is shown that, most of the time, the DNA-binding motifs have subgroup structures close to free groups of rank three or less, a property that we call ‘syntactical freedom’. Such a property is associated with the aperiodicity of the motif when it is seen as a substitution sequence. Examples are provided for the major families of TFs, such as leucine zipper factors, zinc finger factors, homeo-domain factors, etc. We also discuss the exceptions to the existence of such DNA syntactical rules and their functional roles. This includes the TATA box in the promoter region of some genes, the single-nucleotide markers (SNP) and the motifs of some genes of ubiquitous roles in transcription and regulation.
“…[22] and ( [23] p. 90) and follows from the fact that π 2 is not a free group. The group f p is close to π 2 in the sense that the cardinality sequence [1,3,10,51,164,1365,9422,81594, 721305, • • • ] of the cc of subgroups is that of π 2 , up to the higher index 9 that we could reach in our calculations.…”
Section: The Dna-binding Domain Mycmentioning
confidence: 62%
“…The central portion of the protein contains 86 = 30 + 28 + 28 aa decomposed into 3 zinc fingers with the following secondary structure (letter H is for the α-helix segment, letter E is for the β-sheet segment and letter C is for the random coil segment) CCCEECCCCCCCCEECHHHHHHHHHHHHHH CCCEECCCCCCEECHHHHH-HHHHHHHHH CCCEECCCCCCEECHHHHHHHHHHHHHC Taking the former 3-letter chain as the relation of a finitely generated group on 3 letters (and rank 2), we get the cardinality sequence for the cc of its subgroups as [1,3,7,26,112, 717, • • • ], which fits the cardinality sequence of cc of subgroups of the free group F 2 only up to the index 4.…”
Section: The Dna-binding Domain Egr1mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our last papers focused on the relevance of free groups in the encoding of the secondary structure of proteins [2] and in the encoding of tonal music and poetry [3].…”
Transcription factors (TFs) are proteins that recognize specific DNA fragments in order to decode the genome and ensure its optimal functioning. TFs work at the local and global scales by specifying cell type, cell growth and death, cell migration, organization and timely tasks. We investigate the structure of DNA-binding motifs with the theory of finitely generated groups. The DNA ‘word’ in the binding domain—the motif—may be seen as the generator of a finitely generated group Fdna on four letters, the bases A, T, G and C. It is shown that, most of the time, the DNA-binding motifs have subgroup structures close to free groups of rank three or less, a property that we call ‘syntactical freedom’. Such a property is associated with the aperiodicity of the motif when it is seen as a substitution sequence. Examples are provided for the major families of TFs, such as leucine zipper factors, zinc finger factors, homeo-domain factors, etc. We also discuss the exceptions to the existence of such DNA syntactical rules and their functional roles. This includes the TATA box in the promoter region of some genes, the single-nucleotide markers (SNP) and the motifs of some genes of ubiquitous roles in transcription and regulation.
“…The remote principle envisaged by Plotinus is still a symmetry principle but in a modern definition involving group theory and algebraic geometry. Recently, we wrote a paper about a common algebra possibly ruling the beauty and structure in poems, music and proteins [2]. We found that free groups govern the structure of such disparate topics where a language emerges from pure randomness.…”
Transcription factors (TFs) and microRNAs (miRNAs) are co-actors in genome-scale decoding and regulatory networks, often targeting common genes. To discover the symmetries and invariants of the transcription and regulation at the scale of the genome, in this paper, we introduce tools of infinite group theory and of algebraic geometry to describe both TFs and miRNAs. In TFs, the generator of the group is a DNA-binding domain while, in miRNAs, the generator is the seed of the sequence. For such a generated (infinite) group π, we compute the SL(2,C) character variety, where SL(2,C) is simultaneously a ‘space-time’ (a Lorentz group) and a ‘quantum’ (a spin) group. A noteworthy result of our approach is to recognize that optimal regulation occurs when π looks similar to a free group Fr (r=1 to 3) in the cardinality sequence of its subgroups, a result obtained in our previous papers. A non-free group structure features a potential disease. A second noteworthy result is about the structure of the Groebner basis G of the variety. A surface with simple singularities (such as the well known Cayley cubic) within G is a signature of a potential disease even when π looks similar to a free group Fr in its structure of subgroups. Our methods apply to groups with a generating sequence made of two to four distinct DNA/RNA bases in {A,T/U,G,C}. We produce a few tables of human TFs and miRNAs showing that a disease may occur when either π is away from a free group or G contains surfaces with isolated singularities.
This paper explores a formal model of autopoiesis as presented by Maturana, Uribe and Varela, and analyzes this model and its implications through the lens of the notions of eigenforms (fixed points) and the intricacies of Goedelian coding. The paper discusses the connection between autopoiesis and eigenforms and a variety of different perspectives and examples. The paper puts forward original philosophical reflections and generalizations about its various conclusions concerning specific examples, with the aim of contributing to a unified way of understanding (formal models of) living systems within the context of natural sciences, and to see the role of such systems and the formation of information from the point of view of analogs of biological construction. To this end, we pay attention to models for fixed points, self-reference and self-replication in formal systems and in the description of biological systems.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.