Comment by DoctorOetker

3 hours ago

The Millenium Prize problems didn't only withstand decades/century of resolution, they also withstood the same test of time in ridicule of the challenge statement.

This list of "Millenium Problems for Biology" contains such brainfart level "analogies" that there the list will be ridiculed, for the question / challenge itself displays a lack of understanding of the subject in question. Science is also asking the right questions.

Consider for example:

> 10. Protein Amplification Chain Reaction:

> Demonstrate exponential amplification of arbitrary peptide substrates.

> Specifically, demonstrate input-protein-dependent synthesis of new, full-length, sequence-faithful covalent polypeptide copies from amino-acid monomers without a nucleic-acid template or preformed cognate scaffold, in a single pot reaction. For the challenge to be considered complete, at least 100 random peptide sequences of at least 50 amino acids each must be preregistered, synthesized, and pooled. It must then be shown that the abundance of these peptides in solution can be amplified at least 1000x with at least 90% sequence accuracy on a per-residue basis. Reasonable modifications may be added to the peptide sequences to facilitate post-amplification analysis if necessary, provided they are not active in the amplification. Methods that rely on explicit sequencing of the peptide are not permitted. Methods that rely on reverse translation to generate a nucleic acid intermediate are not permitted, because they are duplicative with a separate Millennium Problem.

The analogy is very clear: to amplify DNA or RNA one uses PCR, basically throw the desired product in a cauldron with monomer building blocks, then by repeated heating and cooling the lone monomers find their permitted locations on a complementary pre-existing strand, and form the new polymer strand.

So it seems natural to ask for a generalization to protein polymers, except every biologist or chemist knows its nonsense: proteins don't have a complementary strand! You can't demand chemistry or physics to magically copy without a complementary template!

You may ask "but if that were true, how can we already have PCR for RNA?"

Well pretty simple: while this is done routinely, its only possible indirectly: convert the RNA to double-strand DNA, use PCR on this DNA and then convert the amplified DNA back to RNA!

The demand to not involve sequencing or the hypothetical reverse translatase from one of the other problem statements turns this one into a non-existence theorem, but the challenge doesn't describe a winner for demonstrating its impossibility!

I assure you that any chemist or biologist being asked why we dont have PCR for protein, will understand your lack of knowledge, and explain how PCR works, so that you understand that PCR was only possible because of the complementary strand!