The way you implement the Noble ideas into society is the prize - How it benefits mankind.
@nixonlee37386 жыл бұрын
It's a new world to run in the speed of light! Thanks for Dr.Frances Armold's efforts!
@RONALDJOHNABRAHAM6 жыл бұрын
Congratulations for the historical achievement 😍😍😍
@kairaul26953 жыл бұрын
Instablaster...
@Arghyabanerjee47024 жыл бұрын
Thank you mam for your valuable lectures, regards from India 💐
@physicsisthelifearunpujer31936 жыл бұрын
congratulations , unbelievable, and it is the only near ever possible hopes in the future
@singhslogicalscience25384 жыл бұрын
Madam i want to be your student.
@peijunli98284 жыл бұрын
oh wow, what a inspiring and amazing talk about biocatalysis.
@shrutihalli72175 жыл бұрын
Congratulations, I am diehard lover of GENETICS
@venugopal22274 жыл бұрын
let us give a big salute to our beloved Darwin too for paving the way for wonderful scientists like Francis Arnold....it is high time a global investment is ensured to take up such great researches in evolutionary biology esp in the light of thee Covid19 outbreak...virology should have a strict evolutionary orientation...
@AlphaNumeric123 Жыл бұрын
What’s so unreal about her is that she probably would have revolutionised solar power if she stayed in that area. Brilliant. Destined to make a big difference
@dibakarhajong27376 жыл бұрын
Congratulations Frances Arnold
@frankfuerbeth4945 жыл бұрын
Exciting!
@randommiser33103 жыл бұрын
intresting
@sebastianaguiarbrunemeier91926 жыл бұрын
Awesome talk
@lingabanoth57105 жыл бұрын
Congratulation Madam
@juliodemenezespinto76715 жыл бұрын
Congratulations
@jitnarayanshah9455 жыл бұрын
Congratulation wonderful invention
@esquinadelcronopio4364 жыл бұрын
👏👏👏
@jasonwiley798 Жыл бұрын
Is t here currently any research on creating designer proteins/ enzymes. By which I mean using AI AND SUPERCOMPUTERS to create enzymes that don't exist in nature. These could be used for example break down PFAs.
@jasonwiley798 Жыл бұрын
I asked this question before I watched this video. She talked about designer enzymes
@berndstange-gruneberg98986 жыл бұрын
kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZmbVXnmCfNmme7M: "[The protein space] is bigger the United States national debt." Great sense of humour. Congratulations !
@程睿滢6 жыл бұрын
may i reupload this video to a nonprofit site bilibili? I'll attach the link below
@MoleCluesTV6 жыл бұрын
Hi, is it not possible for you to embed this KZbin video, or simply put the link to it on your site? Best wishes
@程睿滢6 жыл бұрын
I'm in China,it's sort of illegal for us to use KZbin, and most people don't have the access. it's such a insightful and inspiring video, it would be nice if more people can see it. thinks!
@robitmr11646 жыл бұрын
@@程睿滢 哈哈,恭喜up主喜提精彩视频。
@robitmr11646 жыл бұрын
不好意思,我看错了,他不让你公开,唉,没办法,版权意识很强
@logicsconscience2 жыл бұрын
Wow
@pedrozaragoza22536 жыл бұрын
Brilliant research that shows intelligent design.
@rumraket386 жыл бұрын
What a fatuous remark for a lecture demonstrating work that would not be possible if biological evolution of new protein functions was not a reality.
@chunglee68955 жыл бұрын
BS.human garbage cant understand science
@stefanoleidi10064 жыл бұрын
29:51 she just @vsauce 'd us
@teresajohnson13522 жыл бұрын
🤗👍👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
@payattention6215 жыл бұрын
Wake up
@fukpoeslaw36135 жыл бұрын
Pay Attention Evolutionism!
@unfriendlybus32255 жыл бұрын
Fuck i did not even know i was sleeping
@payattention6215 жыл бұрын
Sir or Madam The word Fuck is not called for in this situation - I am sorry I upset you I will watch my mouth if you watch yours.
@mukundpaidhungat9867 жыл бұрын
Brilliant. Try again, fail again, fail better harnessed as a portal into a whole new chemistry of life, I suspect frances Arnold will be back in Stokholm ere to long.
@halfsheep12866 жыл бұрын
Very cunning!
@randommiser33103 жыл бұрын
playing with chemistry and calling it evolution..its reaction.
@Anon21504 жыл бұрын
4:00 "Biology is great, but it can't do what I can do."(?) Let's not forget, biology and chemistry created you, silly. I'm just saying, it's the more impressive thing.
@TearringNable4 жыл бұрын
She was quoting chemists versus her stance on bio-chemistry relations, so hard chemistry versus bioconversion
@richardshane4565 жыл бұрын
I compliment your work however as an engineer why are you not looking at the Crux of the problem you're part of the cog of the problem I understand you have a career a life a reality but you do realize you can change that reality in a instant, right? So which reality have you discovered? there's so many out there... for all of you, the natural world doesn't really need anybody's help however continue on as part of the cog of the problem and not the solution but we all understand you're driven by your academic nature to fix things remember to fix something you need to know what the actual problem really is, not a Band-Aid, especially in biochemistry
@lennycarlson11785 жыл бұрын
shut the fuck up you hobo
@cesarethesomnambulist5 жыл бұрын
@@lennycarlson1178 XDDDDD
@SCIENCEnENGINEER2 жыл бұрын
You sound like a messy, troubled engineer. Maybe reorganize ur thoughts first before making more messes instead of work?
@KenJackson_US4 жыл бұрын
Fascinating! I don't mean to take _anything_ away from this excellent work, but I'm amazed that such brilliant people have so much naive faith in evolution. At 4:28 it's acknowledged that enzymes are *so well designed.* 11:09 _"Imagine just a single protein a few hundred amino acids long, you've got twenty amino acids to work with. That's a really big space of possible sequences. ... It's a really _*_big_*_ number. And, it's mostly empty. ... So how do you search a space of enzymes that's bigger than you can even begin to comprehend and mostly empty?"_ Good question, but an even better question would be, how did _"nature"_ find the original enzymes? Oh sure, we know a mutation or two can wobble around an _existing_ enzyme and change its function slightly, as you've said and demonstrated. But that _"really big"_ space of 20^450 (or 10^585) permutations is, as you said, well beyond astronomically large. A few billion years just won't cut it. A little math, with assumptions very favorable to evolution, will easily show that _"nature"_ couldn't have found _any_ of those enzymes in a trillion trillion trillion trillion years. Seriously. Make some assumptions and do some math.
@bouncycastle9552 жыл бұрын
Your final sentence is your entire problem.
@KenJackson_US2 жыл бұрын
The _"assumptions"_ I was suggesting, @@bouncycastle955, would go something like this: Assume you have such an enormous population of organisms that it's in equilibrium with a trillion reproductions and a trillion deaths per day. And assume _every_ reproduction has mutations that give it a _unique_ protein candidate across all cases. You have to make assumptions to do some hypothetical math to test out how possible it might be to evolve a new protein. These assumptions are _absurd_ but extremely in evolution's favor. So start with those assumptions and figure how long it might take to search the author's _"mostly empty"_ space to find a small functional protein that would benefit the organism. How long? A billion years? Oh no! I typically come up with a trillion trillion trillion years. Am I making an error? What specifically is _"my problem"?_
@bouncycastle9552 жыл бұрын
@@KenJackson_US several. But consider this: when we can't figure out how to rationally design a protein, we use directed evolution. How is that possible if it would even take a decade, let alone longer periods of time?
@KenJackson_US2 жыл бұрын
@@bouncycastle955: _"... , we use directed evolution."_ You and I are talking about two very different things. I'm examining how nature could have _ever_ found _even one_ protein by unguided undirected evolution. There are hundreds of thousands of proteins cataloged in the various protein databases. If all of today's life evolved from the mythical LUCA microbe (as is foolishly taught even today), then _all_ of those evolved along the way. Do you think that's remotely possible?
@bouncycastle9552 жыл бұрын
@@KenJackson_US that's your problem, you think we're talking about different things, we aren't. Of course if you think all of those sequences evolved independently that seems like a lot, but the reality is that all of the hundreds of thousands of proteins out there (hilariously conservative by the way) there are only a few dozen protein families and they all use common folds. We don't know that all proteins are related, and probably they aren't, but my money is on there only be a handful of common ancestors. That's the point. Once we have a scaffold, we can evolve it to perform countless completely unrelated reactions. If we were constantly searching around random sequence space, of course that would be difficult, but as soon as you have something reasonably stable, you can adapt it over and over and over which is what we see life doing even today. You know we've observed stable scaffolds arising from previously noncoding sequences of DNA, right? It's not common but it happens.