Is biology better at computing than supercomputers?

Stimulated by discussions about the physics of learning machines with Gerard Milburn, I have been wondering about biomolecular machines such as proteins that do the transcription and translation of DNA in protein synthesis. These are rather amazing machines.

I found an article which considers a problem that is simpler than learning, computation.

The thermodynamic efficiency of computations made in cells across the range of life

Christopher P. Kempes, David Wolpert, Zachary Cohen and Juan Pérez-Mercader


It considers the computation of translating a random set of 20 amino acids into a specific string for a specific protein. Actual thermodynamic values are compared to a generalised Landauer bound for computation. Below is the punchline. (page 9)

Given that the average protein length is about 325 amino acids for 20 unique amino acids, we have that pi=p=1/20325=1.46×10−423, where there are 20325 states, such that the initial entropy is Inline Formula , which gives the free energy change of kT(SI−0)=4.03×10−18 (J) or 1.24×10−20 (J per amino acid). This value provides a minimum for synthesizing a typical protein. 

We can also calculate the biological value from the fact that if four ATP equivalents are required to add one amino acid to the polymer chain with a standard free energy of 47.7 (kJ mol−1) for ATP to ADP, then the efficiency is 1.03×10−16 (J) or 3.17×10−19 (J per amino acid).  

This value is about 26 times larger than the generalized Landauer bound.

These results illustrate that translation operates at an astonishingly high efficiency, even though it is still fairly far away from the Landauer bound. To put these results in context, it is interesting to note that the best supercomputers perform a bit operation at approximately 5.27×10−13 (J per bit). In other words, the cost of computation in supercomputers is about eight orders of magnitude worse than the Landauer bound of Inline Formula (J) for a bit operation, which is about six orders of magnitude less efficient than biological translation when both are compared to the appropriate Landauer bound. Biology is beating our current engineered computational thermodynamic efficiencies by an astonishing degree.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is it an Unidentified Superconducting Object (USO)?

If you look on the arXiv and in Nature journals there is a continuing stream of people claiming to observe superconductivity in some new material. There is a long history of this and it is worth considering the wise observations of Robert Cava , back in 1997, contained in a tutorial lecture. It would have been useful indeed in the early days of the field [cuprate superconductors] to have set up a "commission" to set some minimum standard of data quality and reproducibility for reporting new superconductors. An almost countless number of "false alarms" have been reported in the past decade, some truly spectacular. Koichi Kitazawa from the University of Tokyo coined these reports "USOs", for Unidentified Superconducting Objects , in a clever cross-cultural double entendre likening them to UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects, which certainly are their equivalent in many ways) and to "lies" in the Japanese translation of USO.   These have caused g
Read more

What is Herzberg-Teller coupling?

Image
Is it something to do with breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation? In molecular spectroscopy you occasionally hear this term thrown around. Google scholar yields more than 3000 hits. But I have found its precise meaning and the relevant physics hard to pin down. Quantum mechanics in chemistry by Schatz and Ratner is an excellent book , but the discussion on page 204 did not help me. "Herzberg-Teller" never appears in Atkins' Molecular quantum mechanics. So here is my limited understanding. Herzberg and Teller wanted to understand why one observed certain vibronic (combined electronic and vibrational) transitions that were not expected, particularly some that were expected to be forbidden on symmetry grounds. " Intensity borrowing " occurred. Herzberg and Teller pointed out that his could be understood if the dipole transition moment for the electronic transition depended on the nuclear co-ordinate associated with the vibration. In the Franck-Condo
Read more

What should be the order of authors on a conference poster or talk?

I welcome discussion on this point. I don't think it is as sensitive or as important a topic as the author order on papers. With regard to paper authorship my general rule is that the person who does the bulk of the work, including actually writing the paper should be the first author. Doug Natelson has a good post on co-authorship , that I largely agree with. My only difference is that I am not really convinced that good practice prevails in the majority of circumstances. I fear there are increasing numbers of co-authors, particularly senior ones, with marginal contributions. But, what about conference talks and posters? Many of these are based on work that is already or about to be published. Should the author order be identical as the associated papers? I am not sure it should necessarily be. My tentative view is that the person who writes and submits the abstract and actually prepares and presents the post/talk should be the first author. Perhaps they should also highlig
Read more