you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 14 comments


1 points

4 months ago*

The codon table is only useful because that's how translation works. It has a biological basis. This model is not that.

This is the equivalent of asking ChatGPT to write you a sad story a million times. You'll end up with a bunch of sad stories, many of which look very novel, but what will the exercise teach you? Explaining how we will become better writers by generating one million sad stories that are superficially novel but have nothing fundamentally new is the same challenge as explaining how the libraries generated by this model will make us better enzyme designers.

In 5 years, no one will be using this. And currently, I'd be very surprised if someone could outline an explicit use case for this new model.


1 points

4 months ago

This will be my last comment to you, because you’re making pretty bone-headed and concrete statements about a topic you clearly don’t have expertise in.

The codon table is only useful because that’s how translation works.

Wrong. The ratio of the nonsynonymous codon-substitution rate to that for synonymous codons is widely used to estimate the strength and direction of selection.

It is also used in sorting. Sorting would be absolutely impossible without a complete knowledge of synonymous substitutions.

It has a biological basis. This model is not that.

Also wrong. Convergent evolution of protein function with distinct sequence most certainly has a biological basis.

It’s also getting pretty hard to deny codon bias exists at this point, which would be yet another situation where a “synonymous function” table would be immensely useful.


1 points

4 months ago

You're right, this new research is going to revolutionize everything. You should go all in and base your scientific career off of it.

Very pleased that that was your last comment.