In transcriptional regulation, you often find that positive signals proceed by inhibiting or destroying a protein that is in turn inhibiting or destroying the effector protein. This can be seen in the retinoblastoma - E2F signalling pathway, and many others. I was wondering if there was any direct biological utility, and if so what this utility was.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You might be interested in reading Uri Alon's take on network motifs: doi.org/10.1038/nrg2102 $\endgroup$
    – J--
    Dec 5 '18 at 18:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This reminds me, somehow, of the Dining Philosophers Problem, which is about avoiding deadlock in distributed systems. $\endgroup$
    – jlawler
    May 4 '19 at 20:09

This feels like a my philosophical question...

Direct regulation of proteins would have to have biological utility - such a gene has to be driven by positive selection to adapt that ability. The question is more about learning what might be driving its role.

I would hazard that protein deactivation and degradation would be important to make sure that these inhibitors could be down-regulated fast enough - if they were left to degrade via a general pathway, the specific signal would not be available for too long a time.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.