these are all the posts under biochemistry...

Doped up on Music

The most basic human instincts to eat and procreate are actually behaviors enforced by a neurochemical reward system hard-wired into our brains. Because we never do something for nothing, our brains have evolved to release a chemical called dopamine—a neurotransmitter—as a reward. Unlike sustenance and reproduction, music has no obvious evolutionary advantage, yet it activates dopamine release in much the same way.

Dopamine is what tells our body that it has been rewarded. dopamine release in the pleasure center of our brain—the nucleus accumbens—is responsible for those feelings of pleasure and satisfaction that keep us asking for more. So when we listen to a song for the very first time, dopamine may be released at certain aurally attractive moments telling us that we like what we’re hearing. So, for some reason, our brains are rewarding us for listening to music.

Dopamine release also occurs in the caudate nucleus, which plays an important role in learning stimulus-reward associations, allowing us to predict when a reward is coming. The more we listen to a particular song, the better we can anticipate when the emotional payoffs will occur. We begin tuning into the sequences of tones and rhythms that lead us to that dopaminergic climax. It is this anticipation—this neurochemical reinforcement—that builds our desire to listen to that song. That makes us feel like we *need* to hear it.

But what is it about music that taps into this adaptive reward-based-learning neural network? The archaeological record suggests that music has been with humans forever, which is not particularly surprising given that animals like birds and whales use song to communicate.* Music that really resonates with us has this natural ability to evoke and even enhance our emotions. Perhaps music has the power to somehow manipulate our neural circuitry, using discordance // resolution, prediction // surprise, anticipation // delay to make our brain think it’s actually experiencing some physical—as opposed to aesthetic + abstract—phenomenon.

The most affective music may in some way be reflecting patterns found in nature, appealing to some instinctual response in us. Or it may mimic the rhythm of some past resonant interaction that has been pre-programmed into our brains, reactivating the experience by going through the dopaminergic motions. Or it may even break with established patterns, toying with our brains by building up to nothing or delaying the delivery of that much-expected, long-awaited hook.

Interestingly, scientists have found that pop songs have become far less dynamic over the last 50 years. Perhaps the likes of Justin Bieber and Carly Rae Jepsen [or the engineers behind their contagious beats] have finally found *the* secret to co-opting our neural circuitry with their viral hits, ushering pop music-making into an almost scientific era. As mass-music-production has become the industry standard, these engineers may have discovered some near-universal [haters gon’ hate] motif that has allowed them to distill pop music-making into a very precise formula designed to appeal to the masses—a sort of unified theory of pop-music synthesis.

Thousands of years of musical evolution culminating in ‘Call Me Maybe’. For better or worse? Let your doped up [or not] brain be the judge.

*Male humpback whales use song to herd fish for feeding and birds use song in courtship rituals. song for food + sex. Whether our brain’s relationship to music can be traced back to our distant animal cousins is unclear to me, however.

Some Like It Hot

Scientists often deal with an invisible world, relying to some degree on the powers of informed intuition to form hypotheses. However, to probe these hypotheses—to find any modicum of truth in our educated guesses—we must find creative ways make the invisible visible.

Radioactivity continues to be one of the most powerful tools at a biochemist’s disposal. harnessing radiation’s high-energy powers of penetration, scientists have learned to track and detect the invisible [or at least microscopic] molecules in our cells for study.

A radioactive isotope is an atom with an unstable nuclear arrangement or protons // neutrons. Over time, this isotope reconfigures its nuclear components to reach a more stable state in a process known as *nuclear decay*, releasing energy in the form of ionizing radiation—alpha, beta, or gamma rays. These *radioactive* rays strike any atoms // molecules in their highly energetic trajectories. on impact, enough energy may be transferred from the incoming ray to the electrons they hit to free these electrons from the grasp of their parent atoms. When these excited // orphaned electrons drop back down from their high-energy states to find their parent atoms once more, energy may be released in the form of visible light.

robot // alien girl. the face of radioactivity.

A radioisotope’s power thus comes from its innate instability—its inherent propensity to release these knock-your-electrons-off radioactive rays. Radiation’s ability to illuminate a material on contact is known as radioluminescence. This phenomenon is the scientist’s mode of visualizing the super informative—and often dangerous—face behind the ominous tick-ticking of our geiger counters.

For my own research, I investigate a modification in one single base of an rna molecule that is 2.3 nm small. [That’s 4×10-8 inches!!] Therefore, I am quite literally blind to any experimental results without some sort of visual aid. As my metaphorical high-power reading glasses, I use *hot probe* radioactively labeled with phosphate-32. This probe finds + binds its target, which I can visualize using an imaging plate made of a material that absorbs // records a pattern of radioactively-induced electron excitation [like that in robot // alien girl’s face]. This pattern can be read with a scanner that uses a laser to return the excited electrons back down to their original ground state. The resulting visible light signal is recorded by the scanner and converted it into a fully interpretable digital image—translating invisible radioactive rays into a fully visible // tangible result.

Radioactivity’s glowing qualities have also recommended themselves to an artist duo, who recently exploited these luminescent properties in an exhibit at the 4a center for contemporary asian art in sydney, australia. In what the birds knew, artists ken + julia yonetani use uranium glass to create large sculptures [like the ant below] to draw attention to the fukushima nuclear disaster following the 2011 earthquake + tsunami in japan. Uranium glass, which is only mildly radioactive, can be made by mixing uranium with glass as it melts. When ultraviolet light shines on the glass, the energy from the UV rays excites an electron off each uranium atom. As you may now guess, when the electron drops back down, energy is once again released as the visible fluorescent green light emanating from their sculptures. Harnessing uranium’s intrinsic energetic properties, the artists thus conjure an eerie // foreboding atmospheric quality to their work. For more on what the birds knew visit here.

ken + julia yonetani. what the birds knew.

How We Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

The Manhattan Project is infamous for its creation of the world’s first nuclear bomb and ushering in the *atomic age*. Few people, however, recognize the project’s invaluable contribution to the dawn of the *biological age*.

This [relatively] unsung tale begins as early as 1944 when the government started making post war arrangements regarding the transfer of atomic energy from military to civilian control. This transition was facilitated by the projected utility of the large quantities of radioactive isotopes being produced by the nuclear reactors at labs across the country. By June 1946, science magazine had published a catalog of readily available radioisotopes for sale. As a result, in less than two decades, the *central dogma* for modern biology was put in place: very generally, DNA is transcribed to make RNA, which is translated to make proteins.


The nuclear-reactor-induced chain of discoveries culminating in this central dogma really began in 1952 with the finding that DNA is the genetic material. Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase infected bacteria with bacteriophages, or bacterial viruses, to determine what material was transferred upon infection. Bacteriophages are essentially made up of DNA enclosed in a protein coat. To trace the phage molecules, sulfur-35 was used to radioactively label the phage protein coat and phosphorous-32 was used to radioactively label the phage DNA. Hershey and Chase found that the 32P-labeled DNA entered bacterial cells, while the 35S-labeled protein coat remained outside. Bacteriophage were passing their DNA, not their proteins, to their host cells! These results strongly suggested that proteins were not the hereditary material.

That such a relatively simple molecule could contain all the information necessary to make us was completely revolutionary // revelationary. Despite the Hershey + Chase experiment, it was not until Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of the double helix in 1953 that DNA finally entered the zeitgeist as the genetic material.* Focusing on the parallels between DNA’s linear structure of A’s, C’s, T’s, and G’s and the linear structure of the amino acid sequences making up proteins, scientists began thinking of dna as a *template* for life.

over time, rna’s radioactivity (in counts per minute) decreases as 14C-leucine is transferred to the growingly radioactive protein chain**

Between 1956-57, the zamecnik group led by Mahlon Hoagland at Massachusetts General Hospital identified RNA as an intermediate between DNA and protein synthesis by tracking the incorporation of the amino acid leucine labelled with carbon-14 into growing protein chains. Scientists already knew that ribosomes, made up of ribosomal RNA and proteins, were the sites of protein synthesis; however, no other forms of rna had yet been observed. Hoagland and Zamecnik demonstrated that to build proteins, a soluble RNA intermediate—later identified as transfer RNA—first becomes radioactively labeled by binding a 14C-leucine before this amino acid is transferred and added to the nascent chain (see Hoagland + Zamecnik’s original figure on right).

1961 saw the discovery of the link between all the pieces of the puzzle: messenger RNA.  mRNA literally carries the genetic message from dna in the nucleus to the ribosome where is acts as a scaffold for ordered protein assembly. Sydney Brenner, Matthew Meselson, and Francois Jacob are formally credited with proving mrna’s existence by using uracil, an RNA nucleotide, radiolabeled with carbon-14 to trace the formation of a transient RNA species that associates with ribosomes to make protein.

The Manhattan Project allowed scientists to follow their Geiger counters to fill in long-standing gaps in our knowledge since we first became aware of this concept of the gene, coined by Gregor Mendel in 1866. Over fifty years later, the central dogma is taught in [almost] every high school biology classroom across the world. Granted over the years, as with most everything in science, our understanding has been complicated and enriched by subsequent discoveries, such as rna’s ability to reverse transcribe to DNA and RNA’s ability to self replicate. Nonetheless—and in the spirit of some belated Thanksgiving gratitude—it is no exaggeration to say that biology owes its rapid and continuing advancement to the Manhattan Project’s [totally rad] leftovers.

Continue reading