For nearly a decade, I was trained as a biochemist. I have studied proteins extensively, in terms of their structure and function. I studied a globular protease from a virus during my doctoral thesis work. I explored how this protease was regulated by other proteins and by phosphorylation, a key post-translational modification in cells. In another project, I studied a disordered protein, how it interacts with other proteins and gains structure and function. Then again I also worked with virus coat proteins which were always eager to make supra-molecular structures to complete the viral life cycle. It was an interesting journey of learning how science gets done. But throughout my stay during my PhD, I had a nagging question in my head. This question was raised by my colleagues, other scientists around me, journal reviewers and then by me as well. The question is what is popular in biological sciences now. In today's world when many live systems (animals and plants) are available, what do in vitro experiments really tell you? When such questions were posed to my colleagues, I saw them clinch and agree that in vitro is the technique of the older days. The results do not match the power of the modern in vivo experimentation. Undeniably, I had the same reaction. Everyone was attempting to move to laboratories where they could gain experience in in vivo work.
Following the bandwagon, I joined my present post-doctoral position. I had a completely new system to work with. I had to either work with squids or Xenopus oocytes. It was like a dream. I am having a lot of fun learning the new subject and techniques. Finally I get to do dissections which I always wanted to try in school but never got a chance. And I get to learn electrophysiology, which was most attractive to me since the days of my Bachelor's. But what about the Biochemistry that I learnt during the duration of my PhD. Well I got lucky. I was hired to do biochemistry work in a lab full of expert electrophysiologists.
This started to get interesting in the very beginning when I realized the difference in the duration of results appearing in the two fields. Then I was taken by surprise when I used to confidently go to the reagent cupboard looking for something "common" according to me, but it just would not be there!
But guess where my biggest surprise and learning are coming from!
Before this lab, I had always presented my work amongst some of the leading biochemists in India. They knew what I was talking about. More importantly, they knew why it was important and thus they were patient and sincere towards listening to my work. But in this lab, I had a completely different audience. And sometimes I would get questions which I would least expect. Questions could be just as basic as "Why are you doing this?". Those questions were often out of scientific curiosity, and sometimes not. But nevertheless, all questions are more often valid than not. Although I used reasoning from subsequent structural analysis we were planning, to support my work flow, something inside me gnawed for a real reason to do these experiments...
Why this approach? Why have scientists been so fascinated with biochemistry for such a long period of time, even when more advanced techniques are out there? What is so important about biochemistry that you cant do without?
Well, when I put my thoughts in order, here is what I can say. If one learns about physics and chemistry, there are certain fundamental laws. There has been a constant effort to find ways in which biology can be reduced to a set of rules that apply universally. In this light, Darwin's theory of evolution and the discovery of DNA have indeed been major breakthroughs. The path to discovery of DNA came through advances in genetics, biochemistry and structural biology.
However, in a complicated world of biology, biochemistry has always offered a glimpse of simplicity. When biochemists purify a protein, they break down the system into simplest possible form. You have a protein in solution. Add a substrate. Do you get a product? Is it an efficient enzyme? Does it undergo modification? What are the sites of modification? How do biomolecules interact? Can the interaction affect their beahvior? With biochemistry you have the power to determine "beyond reasonable doubt" that a biomolecule is capable of behaving in a certain manner. If rigorous experimentation is done, biochemistry gives you the power to start at the simplest molecular level. Answer the simplest questions. And gives you a stronger platform to ask more complicated questions.
Sometimes the answers to questions can be obtained when you can take a step back and view it as an outsider. It is sometimes good to take a step in an unknown territory. Not only will you learn a completely new subject, but you might also gain a new perspective for what you already know. It is true in science and in life!
Following the bandwagon, I joined my present post-doctoral position. I had a completely new system to work with. I had to either work with squids or Xenopus oocytes. It was like a dream. I am having a lot of fun learning the new subject and techniques. Finally I get to do dissections which I always wanted to try in school but never got a chance. And I get to learn electrophysiology, which was most attractive to me since the days of my Bachelor's. But what about the Biochemistry that I learnt during the duration of my PhD. Well I got lucky. I was hired to do biochemistry work in a lab full of expert electrophysiologists.
This started to get interesting in the very beginning when I realized the difference in the duration of results appearing in the two fields. Then I was taken by surprise when I used to confidently go to the reagent cupboard looking for something "common" according to me, but it just would not be there!
But guess where my biggest surprise and learning are coming from!
Before this lab, I had always presented my work amongst some of the leading biochemists in India. They knew what I was talking about. More importantly, they knew why it was important and thus they were patient and sincere towards listening to my work. But in this lab, I had a completely different audience. And sometimes I would get questions which I would least expect. Questions could be just as basic as "Why are you doing this?". Those questions were often out of scientific curiosity, and sometimes not. But nevertheless, all questions are more often valid than not. Although I used reasoning from subsequent structural analysis we were planning, to support my work flow, something inside me gnawed for a real reason to do these experiments...
Why this approach? Why have scientists been so fascinated with biochemistry for such a long period of time, even when more advanced techniques are out there? What is so important about biochemistry that you cant do without?
Well, when I put my thoughts in order, here is what I can say. If one learns about physics and chemistry, there are certain fundamental laws. There has been a constant effort to find ways in which biology can be reduced to a set of rules that apply universally. In this light, Darwin's theory of evolution and the discovery of DNA have indeed been major breakthroughs. The path to discovery of DNA came through advances in genetics, biochemistry and structural biology.
However, in a complicated world of biology, biochemistry has always offered a glimpse of simplicity. When biochemists purify a protein, they break down the system into simplest possible form. You have a protein in solution. Add a substrate. Do you get a product? Is it an efficient enzyme? Does it undergo modification? What are the sites of modification? How do biomolecules interact? Can the interaction affect their beahvior? With biochemistry you have the power to determine "beyond reasonable doubt" that a biomolecule is capable of behaving in a certain manner. If rigorous experimentation is done, biochemistry gives you the power to start at the simplest molecular level. Answer the simplest questions. And gives you a stronger platform to ask more complicated questions.
Sometimes the answers to questions can be obtained when you can take a step back and view it as an outsider. It is sometimes good to take a step in an unknown territory. Not only will you learn a completely new subject, but you might also gain a new perspective for what you already know. It is true in science and in life!