Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, 33:35 | Cite as

Structural and organisational conditions for being a machine

  • Guglielmo Militello
  • Álvaro Moreno
Article

Abstract

Although the analogy between macroscopic machines and biological molecular devices plays an important role in the conceptual framework of both neo-mechanistic accounts and nanotechnology, it has recently been claimed that certain complex molecular devices (consisting of biological or synthetic macromolecular aggregates) cannot be considered machines since they are subject to physicochemical forces that are different from those of macroscopic machines. However, the structural and physicochemical conditions that allow both macroscopic machines and microscopic devices to work and perform new functions, through a combination of elemental functional parts, have not yet been examined. In order to fill this void, this paper has a threefold aim: first, to clarify the structural and organisational conditions of macroscopic machines and microscopic devices; second, to determine whether the machine-like analogy fits nanoscale devices; and third, to assess whether the machine-like analogy is appropriate for describing the behaviour of some biological macromolecules. Finally, the paper gives an account of ‘machine’ which, while acknowledging the physicochemical and organisational differences between man-made machines and biological microscopic devices, nevertheless identifies a common conceptual core that allows us to consider the latter ‘machines’.

Keywords

Machine-like systems Macroscopic machines Molecular machines Mechanistic explanations Nanotechnology Biomolecular machines 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Guglielmo Militello is supported by the predoctoral scholarship of the University of the Basque Country PIF17/31. Álvaro Moreno acknowledges the Research Projects of the Basque Government IT 590-13, and of MINECO FFI2014-52173-P, as well as a Salvador de Madariaga Fellowship PRX17/00379. The authors also thank the IHPST (Paris) for hosting their research stay during the first semester of 2018, and Manuel Barandiarán, Leonardo Bich, Matteo Mossio, Kepa Ruiz-Mirazo, Riccardo Zucchi and an anonymous reviewer for their careful reading of the manuscript and valuable feedback on an earlier version of this paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ackermann D, Schmidt TL, Hannam JS, Purohit CS, Heckel A, Famulok M (2010) A double-stranded DNA rotaxane. Nat Nanotechnol 5:436–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnellos A, Moreno A (2012) How functional differentiation originated in prebiotic evolution. Ludus Vitalis 20:1–23Google Scholar
  3. Astumian RD (2002) Protein conformational fluctuations and free-energy transduction. Appl Phys A 75:193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Astumian RD (2012) Microscopic reversibility as the organizing principle of molecular machines. Nat Nanotechnol 7:684–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Astumian RD, Hänggi P (2002) Brownian motors. Phy Today 55:33–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Astumian RD, Mukherjee S, Warshel A (2016) The physics and physical chemistry of molecular machines. Chem Phys Chem 17:1719–1741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ballardini R, Balzani V, Credi A, Gandolfi MT, Venturi M (2001) Artificial molecular-level machines: which energy to make them work? Acc Chem Res 34:445–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Balzani V, Credi A, Ferrer B, Silvi S, Venturi M (2005) Artificial molecular motors and machines: design principles and prototype systems. Top Curr Chem 262:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bechtel W (2017) Explicating top–down causation using networks and dynamics. Philos Sci 84:253–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bechtel W, Abrahamsen A (2005) Explanation: a mechanistic alternative. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 36:421–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bechtel W, Richardson RC (2010) Discovering complexity: decomposition and localisation as strategies in scientific research. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Bich L, Mossio M, Ruiz-Mirazo K, Moreno A (2016) Biological regulation: controlling the system from within. Biol Phil 31:237–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collier J, Hooker CA (1999) Complexly organised dynamical systems. Open Syst Inf Dyn 6:241–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Craver CF (2001) Role functions, mechanisms, and hierarchy. Philos Sci 68:53-74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Credi A, Silvi S, Venturi M (2014) Light-operated machines based on threated molecular structures. In: Credi A, Silvi S, Venturi M (eds) Molecular machines and motors: recent advances and perspectives Topics in current chemistry, vol 354. Springer, Cham, pp 1–34Google Scholar
  16. Descartes R (1637/1999) Discourse on method and related writings. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Descartes R (1664/1972) Treatise of man. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Dicker JJ, Pennock GR, Shigley JE (2003) Theory of machines and mechanisms. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Feniouk B, Yoshida M (2008) Regulatory mechanisms of proton-translocating of F0F1ATP synthase. In: Schäfer G, Penefsky H (eds) Bioenergetics: energy conservation and conversion. Springer, Berlin, pp 279–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Feynman R (1963) Lectures on physics, volume I, chapter 46. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  21. Glennan S (1996) Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Erkenntnis 44:50–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Illari P (2013) Mechanistic explanation: integrating the ontic and epistemic. Erkenntnis 78:237–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaplan DM (2015) Moving parts: the natural alliance between dynamical and mechanistic modeling approaches. Biol Phil 30:757–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kinoshita M (2016) Mechanism of functional expression of the molecular machines. Springer, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lehn JM (1995) Supramolecular chemistry: concepts and perspectives. VCH, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levy A (2014) Machine-likeness and explanation by decomposition. Phil Impr 14:1–15Google Scholar
  27. Machamer P, Darden L, Craver CF (2000) Thinking about mechanisms. Philos Sci 67:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mahony CT, Farrell RA, Goshal T, Holmes JD, Morris MA (2011) The thermodynamics of defect formation in self-assembled systems. In: Moreno-Piraján JC (ed) Thermodynamics—systems in equilibrium and non-equilibrium. InTech, Rijeka, pp 279–306Google Scholar
  29. Moore PB (2012) How should we think about the ribosome? Ann Rev Biophys 41:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moreno A, Mossio M (2015) Biological autonomy: a philosophical and theoretical enquiry. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mossio M, Moreno A (2010) Organisational closure in biological organisms. Hist Phil Life Sci 32:269–288Google Scholar
  32. Mossio M, Saborido C, Moreno Bergareche A (2009) An organizational account of biological functions. Br J Philos Sci 60:813–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nicholson DJ (2012) The concept of mechanism in biology. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci 43:152–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nicholson DJ (2013) Organism ≠ machines. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci 44:669–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nicholson DJ (2018) Reconceptualizing the organism: from complex machine to flowing stream. In: Nicholson DJ, Dupré J (eds) Everything flows: towards a processual philosophy of biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 139–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Polanyi M (1968) Life’s Irreducible Structure. Science 160:1308–1312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Raanan H, Pike DH, Moore EK, Falkowski PG, Nanda V (2018) Modular origins of biological electron transport chains. PNAS.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1714225115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reuleaux F (1876) Kinematics of machinery: outlines of a theory of machines. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Rorick MM, Wagner GP (2011) Protein structural modularity and robustness are associated with evolvability. Genome Biol Evol 3:456–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sauvage JP, Dietrich-Buchecker C (1999) Molecular catenanes, rotaxanes, and knots: a journey through the world of molecular topology. Wiley-VCH, WeinheimCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Simón A, Bataller A, Cabrera JA, Ezquerro F, Guerra AJ, Nadal F, Ortiz A (2016) Fundamentals of machine theory and mechanisms. Springer, Cham (ZG)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Skillings DJ (2015) Mechanistic explanation of biological processes. Philos Sci 82:1139–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Trifonov EN, Frenkel ZM (2009) Evolution of protein modularity. Curr Opin Struct Biol 19:335–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Valero J, Lohmann F, Famulok M (2017) Interlocked DNA topologies for nanotechnology. Curr Opin Biotech 48:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wilkens S (2000) F0F1-ATP synthase—stalking mind and imagination. J Bioenerg Biomembr 32:333–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wimsatt WC (1986) Forms of aggregativity. In: Donagan A, Perovich AN Jr, Wedin MV (eds) Human nature and natural knowledge. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 259–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Winning J, Bechtel W (2018) Rethinking causality in biological and neural mechanisms: constraints and control. Minds Mach.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9458-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zednik C (2011) The nature of dynamical explanation. Philos Sci 78:238–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, IAS-Research Centre for Life, Mind and SocietyUniversity of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)Donostia-San SebastiánSpain

Personalised recommendations