How functional differentiation originated in prebiotic evolution

  1. Arnellos, Argyris 1
  2. Moreno, Álvaro 1
  1. 1 IAS-Research Centre for Life, Mind and Society, Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, University of the Basque Country, Donostia - San Sebastian, Spain.
Revista:
Ludus vitalis: revista de filosofía de las ciencias de la vida = journal of philosophy of life sciences = revue de philosophie des sciences de la vie

ISSN: 1133-5165

Año de publicación: 2012

Volumen: 20

Número: 37

Páginas: 1-23

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Ludus vitalis: revista de filosofía de las ciencias de la vida = journal of philosophy of life sciences = revue de philosophie des sciences de la vie

Resumen

 Even the simplest cell exhibits a high degree of functional differentiation (FD) realized through several mechanisms and devices contributing differently to its maintenance. Searching for the origin of FD, we briefly argue that the emergence of the respective organizational complexity cannot be the result of either natural selection (NS) or solely of the dynamics of simple self-maintaining (SM) systems. Accordingly, a highly gradual and cumulative process should have been necessary for the transition from either simple self-assembled or self-maintaining systems of functionless structural components to systems with FD. We follow results of recent in vitro experiments with respect to competition among protocells, where a primitive type of selection begins to operate among them accompanied by a parallel evolution of their functional domain. We argue that minimal forms of FD should be established within the evolution of SM processes in protocells as they undergo a simpler selection process for stability and persistence in a prebiotic environment. We then suggest the concept of closure of constraints (CoC) as a way to identify and describe minimal FD in a far-from-equilibrium SM organization. We show in detail how the concept of CoC together with the conditions for its fulfillment can be applied in the case of a simple protocellular system that begins to couple internal chemical reactions with the formation of its membrane components. Finally, we discuss how such SM systems can evolve towards significantly higher levels of FD, suggesting this is mainly the result of functional recombination (formation of mechanisms) in the context of a modular SM organization.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Bechtel, W. and Abrahamsen, A. (2005), “Explanation: a mechanistic alternative”,
  • Studies in History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36: 421-441.
  • Bickhard, M. H. (2000), “Autonomy, function, and representation”, Commun. Cogn. Artif. Intell. 17 (3–4): 111–131.
  • Bickhard, M. H. (2004), “Process and emergence: normative function and representation”, Axiomathes 14: 121-155.
  • Budin, I., and Szostak, J. W. (2011), “Physical effects underlying the transition from primitive to modern cell membranes”, PNAS 108 (13): 5249-5254.
  • Chen I. A., Roberts R. W., and Szostak J. W. (2004), “The emergence of competition between model protocells”, Science 305: 1474–1476.
  • Christensen W. D. and Bickhard, M. H. (2002), “The process dynamics of normative function”, Monist 85 (1): 3–28.
  • Collier, J. (1999), “Autonomy in anticipatory systems: significance for functionality, intentionality and meaning,” in Dubois, D. M. (ed.), Computing Anticipatory Systems, CASYS’98 - Second International Conference, American Institute of Physics, New York: Woodbury, pp: 75-81.
  • Collier, J. (2000), “Autonomy and process closure as the basis for functionality”, Annual NY Academy of Science 901: 289-291.
  • Collier, J. (2004), “Interactively open autonomy unifies two approaches to function,” in Dubois, D. M. (ed.), Computing Anticipatory Systems, CASY’03 - Sixth International Conference, American Institute of Physics, Melville, New York, AIP Conference Proceedings 718, pp: 228-235.
  • Collier, J. D. & Hooker, C. D. (1999), “Complexly organized dynamical systems.” Open Systems and Information Dynamics 6: 241-302.
  • Delancey, C. (2006), “Ontology and teleofunctions: A defense and revision of the systematic account of teleological explanation”, Synthese 150: 69-98.
  • Edin, B. (2008), “Assigning biological functions: making sense of causal chains”, Synthese 161: 203-218.
  • Fox Keller, E. (2007), “The disappearance of function from ‘self-organizing systems’,” in Boogerd F, Bruggeman J.H., Hofmeyr H.V., Westerhoff H. (eds.), Systems Biology. Philosophical Foundations. Elsevier, Dordrecht, pp: 303–318.
  • Fox Keller, E. (2009), “Self-organization, self-assembly, and the inherent activity of matter,” in S. H. Otto (ed.), The Hans Rausing Lecture 2009 (Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts, Department of History of Science and Ideas).
  • Fox Keller, E. (2010), “It is possible to reduce biological explanations to explanations in chemistry and/or physics,” in Francisco J. Ayala and Robert Arp (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Biology. NY: Wiley, pp: 19-31.
  • Glansdorff, P. and Prigogine, I. (1971), Thermodynamics of Structure, Stability and Fluctuations. London: Wiley.
  • Godfrey-Smith, P. (1994), “A modern history theory of functions”, Noûs 28: 344–62. Reprinted in D. J. Buller (ed.), 1999, Function, Selection, and Design, Albany, New York: SUNY Press, pp. 199–220.
  • Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2009), Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Karsenti, E. (2008), “Self-organization in cell biology: a brief history”, Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 9 (3): 255-262.
  • Lehn, J. M. (1995), Supramolecular Chemistry: Concepts and Perspectives. New York: Wiley-VCH.
  • Manrubia, S. and Briones, C. (2007), “Modular evolution and increase of functional complexity in RNA molecules”, RNA 13(1): 97-107.
  • Mavelli, F. and Ruiz-Mirazo, K. (2007), “Stochastic simulations of minimal selfreproducing cellular systems”, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 362: 1789–1802.
  • Millikan, R. G. (1989), “In defense of proper functions”, Philosophy of Science 56: 288–302.
  • Morange, M. (2008), “The increasing place of macromolecular machines in the in the descriptions of molecular biologists”, personal communication.
  • Moreno, A. and Ruiz-Mirazo, K. (2009), “The problem of the emergence of functional diversity in prebiotic evolution”, Biology and Philosophy 24 (5): 585-605.
  • Mossio, M., Saborido, C. and Moreno, A. (2009), “An organizational account for biological functions”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (4): 813-841.
  • Mossio, M. and Moreno, A. (2010), “Organisational closure in biological organisms”, History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 32 (2-3): 269-288.
  • Neander, K. (1991), “Function as selected effects: The conceptual analyst’s defense”, Philosophy of Science 58: 168–184.
  • Nicolis, G. and Prigogine, I. (1977), Self-Organization in Non-Equilibrium Systems: From Dissipative Structures to Order Through Fluctuation. New York: Wiley.
  • Nicolis, G. (1989), “Physics of far-from-equilibrium systems and self-organisation”, in P. Davies (ed.), The New Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp: 316–47.
  • Piedrafita, G., Mavelli, F., Moran, F. and Ruiz-Mirazo, K. (2011), “On the transition from prebiotic to protobiological membranes: from ‘self-assembly’ to ‘self-production’”, in: LNCS, 5777/2011: 256-264.
  • Ruiz Mirazo, K. and Mavelli, F. (2007), “Simulation model for functionalized vesicles: lipid-peptide integration in minimal protocells”, in Almeida e Costa F, Rocha LM, Harvey I, Coutinho A (eds.) ECAL 2007, Lisbon, Portugal, September 10–14, 2007, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4648. Springer, Heidelberg, pp: 32–4.
  • Ruiz-Mirazo, K. and Mavelli, F. (2008), “On the way towards basic autonomous agents: stochastic simulations of lipid-peptide cells”, Biosystems 91: 374-87.
  • Ruse, M. (2003), Darwin and Design: Does Evolution have a Purpose? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Segre, D. and Lancet, D. (2000), “Composing life” EMBO Rep 1 (3): 217–222.
  • Schlosser, G. (1998), “Self-re-production and functionality: a systems-theoretical approach to teleological explanation”, Synthese 116: 303–354.
  • Walde, P., Goto, A., Monnard, P. A., Wessicken, M. and Luisi, P. L. (1994), “Oparin’s reaction revisited: enzymatic synthesis of poly (adenylic acid) in micelles and self-reproducing vesicles”, J Am Chem Soc 116: 7541–7547.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet