Ala Trusina is a Moldavian scientist and one of the top
researchers of cellular networks at the University of California, San Fransisco (UCSF).
Just as brain cells function in neural networks, so it is for all the rest of the body’s cells – although the types of networks and structures differ. These body structures are precisely what Trusina studies. She also did research in this field at the University of Copenhagen’s Center for Models of Life with Swedish biologist and physicist Martin Rosvall, whom we’ll meet later on in the book. With their colleagues, they are contributing evidence to support the emerging view that the network is the essential structure upon which to base scientific thinking – the lens through which we ought to look at the world.
Ala Trusina is one of those rare people who are not only
charming and attractive, but also possesses an IQ that few in the world can rival. She is also an enthusiastic conversationalist. In fact, when we met for coffee near her office on the UCSF campus, I had to get my intellect in gear and rev up my brain, because Trusina delivers ideas and information with machine gun speed.
I couldn’t help asking one of the keenest minds in the network field, whether we are seeing networks everywhere now because
“networks” and “networking” had become such popular “buzz words.” She replied with the fascinating fact that everything in human biology consists of little networks interconnected with larger networks. She likened it to a Russian “babushka” doll of networks that are integral parts of more inclusive networks, each contained within an even larger network. From the microscopic building blocks of our bodies’ cells; to the networks our bodies create when they interact; to social networks between people; as she puts it:
“Networks have always been here. We’re just discovering them now. When you start this trail of thought, you quickly realize that the world is a big network consisting of smaller networks. Amino acids, the smallest building blocks of proteins are arranged in
networks. And then proteins are networked with each other.
These protein networks are the building blocks of the cells in the body, which then interact in networks. We already know that brain cells are networked in the brain. But the latest research shows that immunity system cells, T-cells also communicate.
The build networks that contain a collective memory of what they’ve seen. And then, of course, there are the organs of the body, which in principle is a network, and then you have people interacting in networks. So this goes on at all levels. “
Dr. Trusina switched from the world of physics to biology
because she sees biology as the building blocks of physics. Or in her own words:
“Biology is the physics of the 21st century.”
Among other things, she is motivated by the fact that this new knowledge of networks can aid in the curing of serious illnesses in the future. By comparing alterations in cellular networks to the way network structures develop in everything from the internet to human social networks, it may be possible to make predictions that aid in disease prevention. Cellular changes are central to the development of Parkinson’s, cancer and diabetes. So perhaps this science of networks knowledge holds some
answers to the mysteries that have impeded the fighting of these diseases. Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus is what Trusina and her team are working on currently, comparing network structure in the cells to network structure everywhere else. In this case it is a matter of missing or wrong communication between the cells.
Simply put, some cells just don’t pick up the phone. Why not?
“In our laboratory, we’re studying unfolded protein response right now. When unfolded proteins in cells don’t respond properly, it can lead to type 2 diabetes. There’s a communication that tells the unfolded protein to stop responding. Next we will be looking at feedback [in that system].”
In summary, Trusina and her colleagues are studying how the two-way communication works in cellular networks, because this may hold the answer to the prevention of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. If it becomes possible to engineer a flawless
communication between the cells, it will be a great leap forward in the curing of all cellular change-oriented illnesses.
In this way Trusina traces a line back to where it all started – McCulloch and Pitts’s neural network, and Wiener’s self regulatory machine which used feedback for adjustment.
Marc Vidal, Ph.D., is another scientist who is making great progress in this field at the moment. At the Dana Farber Cancer Institute at Harvard, Dr. Vidal studies how network science and our knowledge of network behavior may contribute to finding a cure for cancer.He is collaborating with another leading network scientist, Albert-László Barabási (whom we shall return to.) In 2007 they published a study that showed how all major worldwide diseases are interconnected in a mega-network.
How? It’s all about genetics.
Scientists across the globe have been tagging and pairing illnesses with specific genes for some time. This means associating certain illnesses with particular genes of the body.
Vidal and Barabási have been trying to map how different diseases are related because they have a shared gene malfunction.They discovered that all major diseases can be genetically mapped in a network where they are all connected, with certain centers attracting more relations than others.
According to the Vidal-Barabási map, there is a genetic connection between leukemia and obesity – a connection that wasn’t obvious earlier. Deafness is genetically tied to heart diseases; and there are only two genetic links between asthma and Parkinson’s. By looking at illnesses through this network method, scientists can now discover new aspects to the causes of illness. It is hoped that this, in turn, will lead to finding faster and more effective cures.
We have taken a look at the incredibly complex network of networks in our body, and some of the research being done by some of the world’s most outstanding scientists.That was the physical side of things, but how about the psychological side? If we look on the purely biological side, Homo Conexus is not significantly different from Industrial Man. But Homo Conexus
has an enormously different way of perceiving the world. This perceptual divide may be the biggest difference, the biggest change, and therefore also the most important development in human history since the steam engine.
It’s about how Homo Conexus perceives itself.
***