Simakov Yu g information matrices and morphogenesis. Phantom biological fields. Approximate word search
The picture of the development of organisms, or morphogenesis, constantly takes place before our eyes. And it is not for nothing that the prominent American biologist E. Sinnot said that “morphogenesis, since it is associated with the most distinctive feature of living things - organization, is a crossroads where all the paths of biological research converge... It is here that we should probably expect the largest discoveries."
What signs are there at this intersection? Where is the “living device” stored that monitors how the genetic record from chemical language is translated into a real three-dimensional structure, into the body? It is impossible for a genetic program to accomplish this alone. And the experiments mentioned earlier confirm that it is impossible to do without an organizational center. After all, every cell of the body contains the same genetic program; every cell contains substances that come from the organizational center. How is the general management of the spatial arrangement and shape of cells accomplished?
Cells that build organisms specialize and sometimes even die in order to obtain the necessary spatial structure. For example, this is how fingers are formed on the limbs of an embryo, when the tissues between the future fingers die, and a five-fingered hand is formed from the plate - the rudiment of the hand. An unknown sculptor, sculpting a living creature, not only redistributes, but even removes unnecessary material in order to create what is intended by the genetic program.
Molecular genetics has elucidated the ways of transmitting information from DNA to messenger RNA, which, in turn, serves as a matrix for the synthesis of proteins from amino acids. The influence of genes on cell metabolism and their synthesis is now being intensively studied. But genes alone are hardly enough to create the spatial structure of, say, a radish tuber or a fancy shell. Doubts of this kind have haunted the minds of embryologists and people involved in the spatial differentiation of cells for decades, and as a result, the concept of a “morphogenetic field” has emerged. The meaning of many theories of the embryonic field comes down to the fact that around the embryo, or fetus, there is a special field, which, as it were, molds organs and entire organisms from the cellular mass.
The most developed concepts of the embryonic field belong to the Austrian P. Weiss and the Soviet scientists A. G. Gurvich and N. K. Koltsov. According to Weiss and Gurvich, the field does not have the usual physical and chemical characteristics. A.G. Gurvich called it a biological field. In contrast, N.K. Koltsov believed that the field that commands the integrity of the developing organism is composed of ordinary physical fields.
Weiss wrote that the initial morphogenetic field acts on the cellular material, forms from it certain rudiments of the body’s organs, and that as development progresses, more and more new fields are formed, commanding the development of the organs and the entire body of the individual. In short, the field develops, then its embryo, and the cells of the body are very passive - they are guided by the morphogenetic field. The concept of the biological field of A.G. Gurvich is based on the fact that the field is created in every cell of the body. However, the scope of action of the cellular field goes beyond its limits; the cellular fields seem to merge into a single field, which changes with the spatial redistribution of cells.
According to both concepts, the embryonic field develops in the same way as the entire embryo. However, according to Weiss, it does this independently, and according to Gurvich’s theory, under the influence of embryonic cells.
But if we take the independent development of the morphogenetic field as an axiom, then our knowledge will not advance one step forward. For, in order to somehow explain the spatial development of the morphogenetic field itself, it is necessary to introduce new fields of the 2nd, 3rd order, and so on. If the cells themselves build a morphogenetic field for themselves, and then change and move under its influence, then this field acts as a tool for distributing cells in space. But how then can we explain the shape of the future organism? Let's say the shape of a buttercup or a hippopotamus. In addition, according to Gurvich’s theory, the source of the vector field is the cell nucleus and only by adding the vectors does the total field emerge.
But organisms that have only one nucleus feel good. For example, the three-centimeter-long single-celled alga Acetobularia has rhizoids resembling roots, a thin stalk and an umbrella. How did a single core with its field give such a complex shape and how was such a complex spatial structure built under its influence? If the rhizoid containing the nucleus is cut off from an acetobularia, it will not lose its ability to regenerate. For example, if you deprive her of an umbrella, it grows again. Where then is spatial memory located? Experiments with acetobularia convince that Gurvich's concept of the biological field is not applicable to single-celled organisms.
Is it possible to find a way out of the created contradictions? Let's speculate. Why must the embryonic field necessarily change during the development of the organism, like the embryo itself? Isn’t it more logical to think that the field does not change from the very first stages of development, but serves as the matrix that the embryo seeks to fill? But where did the field itself come from and why does it so clearly correspond to the genetic program inherent in a given organism?
And is it not worth suggesting that the field that controls development is generated by the interaction of the helical structure of DNA, where the original genetic record is stored, with the surrounding space? After all, this can give, as it were, a spatial record of the organism, be it the same buttercup or a hippopotamus. As the number of cells increases during their division, the fields formed by the influence of DNA on space are summed up, the total field grows, but does not change its spatial organization and retains the structure inherent only to a given organism. As soon as the young organism exhausts the hereditary program and the contours of some components of the embryonic field and the organism itself coincide, growth must stop. The field of the body, which welds together all the parts and commands development, in my opinion, is more accurately called an individual information field. What is its supposed nature?
According to some concepts, this is a complex of physical and chemical factors that form a single field (N.K. Koltsov). According to other researchers, the morphogenetic field may include all currently known physicochemical interactions, but representing a qualitatively new level of these interactions. And since each creature has an inherent individuality, recorded by genetic code, the information field is purely individual. No one is surprised that the nucleus of any cell in the body contains all the genetic memory. During differentiation in different organs, only that part of the genetic program begins to work, which commands the synthesis of proteins in a given specific organ or even in a separate cell. But the information field is probably always intact. Otherwise, it is simply impossible to explain its preservation even in a small part of the body.
This assumption is not at all speculative. To show the integrity of the information field in each part of the body, let’s take living beings that are convenient for this.
Mucous fungus myxomycete-dictyostelium. He, as we wrote, has a curious life cycle. At first, all the cells seem to be scattered and move around the soil in the form of “amoebas,” then one or more cells secrete the substance akrazine, which serves as a signal “everyone come to me.” The amoebas crawl together and form the multicellular organism Plasmodium, which looks like a worm-like slug. This slug crawls out onto a dry place and turns into a small, thin-legged fungus with a round head containing spores. Right before our eyes, a complex organism is assembled from cells, which, as it were, fills its existing information field. Well, if you reduce the number of merging cells by half, what will you get - half a fungus or a whole one? This is what they did in the laboratory. From half of the “amoebas” a fungus of the same shape is obtained, only half the size. They left 1/4 of the cells, they merged again and gave rise to a fungus with all its inherent properties and genetically determined forms, only smaller in size. It turns out that any number of cells carries information about the shape that they need to add when they come together. True, there is a limit somewhere, and a small number of cells may not be enough to build a fungus. However, knowing all this, it is difficult to refuse the conclusion that the form of the fungus is embedded in the information field even when the body is scattered into individual cells. When cells merge, their information fields are summed up, but this summation looks more like a proliferation, an inflation of a certain field.
And planarian flatworms can restore their appearance from 1/300 parts of their body. If you cut a planarian into pieces with a razor and leave them alone for three weeks, the cells change their specialization and rebuild into whole animals. After three weeks, instead of flatworms chopped into pieces, planaria crawl along the bottom of the crystallizer, almost equal to adults and crumbs barely visible to the eye. But all of them have a visible head with eyes and olfactory ears placed to the sides; they are all the same in shape, although they differ in size hundreds of times. Each creature was formed from a different number of cells, but according to one “blueprint”. So it turns out that any piece of the planarian’s body carried an entire information field.
I carried out similar experiments with unicellular organisms, with large, 2 millimeters in height, ciliates spirostomes. Such ciliates can be cut into 60 parts with a microscalpel under a microscope, and each of them is restored again into a whole cell. Ciliates grow, but not indefinitely. The cells, having reached their required size, seem to run up against an invisible border. This is the boundary that the information field can set.
It turns out that the information field equally serves unicellular, colonial and multicellular organisms. And shouldn’t we assume that even before fertilization, sex cells carry coded information fields? And when the egg and sperm merge, their information fields are also combined, giving an intermediate, or generalized, type that carries the characteristics of the father and mother.
Cells can live without nuclei, but lose the ability to regenerate and self-heal. True, regeneration is sometimes observed even in the absence of a nucleus. Let's remember about acetobularia; it can grow a new umbrella even without a nucleus. Although regeneration of the umbrella in acetobularia in the absence of a nucleus can only occur once, this is already enough to suggest the incredible - the information field remains around the cell for some time, even if it is deprived of the main genetic material!
The sizes of living beings are fixed genetically. A tiny mouse and a huge elephant grow from eggs that are almost equal in size. Even creatures of the same species, whose genetic development program is very close, and which easily interbreed, can be very different in size. Compare, for example, a Chihuahua dog that you can put in your pocket, and a huge Great Dane.
Conditions for the body can be good or bad. An organism can grow quickly or slowly, but normally it does not outgrow the invisible, genetically fixed limit of its size. So far, besides the information field, it is perhaps impossible to assume any other mechanism that controls growth, which would accurately reproduce the hereditary record in the nucleus of any cell and at the same time unite all cells into a single whole.
Biologists have put a lot of work into identifying the reasons that prompt a cell to begin division-mitosis. If people learn to control this process, the sword will be raised over malignant tumors, in which cell division is still uncontrollable.
Look at the tip of your finger, you will see papillary lines that are unique to you. If damaged, they can be completely destroyed. However, if a scar does not form, after regeneration the papillary pattern will appear again. It’s hard to believe that the Kaylons are capable of such sophisticated art. But the information field would be quite suitable for the role of a painter.
I recently experimented with the epithelium of the lens of a frog's eye. Each time the lens was injured, mitoses appeared in undamaged parts of the epithelium, and the band of mitoses exactly repeated the configuration of the injury. And one more strange feature: the area limited by the mitotic band does not depend on the magnitude of the injury (Fig. 16, a, b). The theories of wound hormones and kelons do not explain anything here. With chemical regulation, the area covered by mitoses would depend on the magnitude of the injury. And isn’t it the information field that conveys the form of trauma?
Of course, it is too early to draw conclusions, and further speculation can only lead to new questions. But I still believe that the time will come when many things in developmental biology will have to be looked at differently.
It all comes down to the fact that the development of organisms and their formation is guided, as it were, by a triad: a genetic program, an organizational center and an information field unique to them. The genetic program acts as an index, and the organizational center selects or creates a field characteristic of a given organism that corresponds to the index.
To narrow down the search results, you can refine your query by specifying the fields to search for. The list of fields is presented above. For example:
You can search in several fields at the same time:
Logical operators
The default operator is AND.
Operator AND means that the document must match all elements in the group:
research development
Operator OR means that the document must match one of the values in the group:
study OR development
Operator NOT excludes documents containing this element:
study NOT development
Search type
When writing a query, you can specify the method in which the phrase will be searched. Four methods are supported: search taking into account morphology, without morphology, prefix search, phrase search.
By default, the search is performed taking into account morphology.
To search without morphology, just put a “dollar” sign in front of the words in the phrase:
$ study $ development
To search for a prefix, you need to put an asterisk after the query:
study *
To search for a phrase, you need to enclose the query in double quotes:
" research and development "
Search by synonyms
To include synonyms of a word in the search results, you need to put a hash " #
" before a word or before an expression in parentheses.
When applied to one word, up to three synonyms will be found for it.
When applied to a parenthetical expression, a synonym will be added to each word if one is found.
Not compatible with morphology-free search, prefix search, or phrase search.
# study
Grouping
In order to group search phrases you need to use brackets. This allows you to control the Boolean logic of the request.
For example, you need to make a request: find documents whose author is Ivanov or Petrov, and the title contains the words research or development:
Approximate word search
For an approximate search you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of a word from a phrase. For example:
bromine ~
When searching, words such as "bromine", "rum", "industrial", etc. will be found.
You can additionally specify the maximum number of possible edits: 0, 1 or 2. For example:
bromine ~1
By default, 2 edits are allowed.
Proximity criterion
To search by proximity criterion, you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of the phrase. For example, to find documents with the words research and development within 2 words, use the following query:
" research development "~2
Relevance of expressions
To change the relevance of individual expressions in the search, use the " sign ^
" at the end of the expression, followed by the level of relevance of this expression in relation to the others.
The higher the level, the more relevant the expression is.
For example, in this expression, the word “research” is four times more relevant than the word “development”:
study ^4 development
By default, the level is 1. Valid values are a positive real number.
Search within an interval
To indicate the interval in which the value of a field should be located, you should indicate the boundary values in parentheses, separated by the operator TO.
Lexicographic sorting will be performed.
Such a query will return results with an author starting from Ivanov and ending with Petrov, but Ivanov and Petrov will not be included in the result.
To include a value in a range, use square brackets. To exclude a value, use curly braces.
http://urss.ru/220499
Simakov Yu.G.
Phantom biological fields
2016. 432 p. Soft cover. ISBN 978-5-9908473-1-6.
We are accustomed to the belief that genes control the entire development of the body. Now this view is changing. Genes alone cannot ensure morphogenesis and create the form of a living being; they contain little information. Genes are important, but they act as an “address”, thanks to which an information matrix (biomatrix) is selected for a developing organism. And to implement the information contained in the biomatrix and to control living cells, a phantom biofield is used, controlling the spatial distribution of cells and their specialization in various tissues and organs. All this happens during the individual development of the organism. A similar mechanism is apparently used in historical development, in the process of evolution. Then it turns out that only living matter evolves, and the path of evolution itself is predetermined (preformed) by the same biomatrices, which are consistently mastered by progressively developing living matter.
This monograph is intended both for researchers involved in developmental biology, as well as for a wide range of readers interested in problems of embryology and evolution.
Simakov Yuri Georgievich, Doctor of Biological Sciences, Professor. In 1966 he graduated from the Department of Embryology at Moscow State University, in 1969 he defended his candidate's dissertation at Moscow State University, and in 1986 his doctoral dissertation. The topics of these dissertations are related to the study of biosystems that break down under anthropogenic influence. Currently, he is a professor at the Department of Bioecology and Ichthyology at Moscow State University.
http://urss.ru/157827
Nazarov V.I.
Evolution not according to Darwin: Changing the evolutionary model. Ed.4, stereot.
URSS. 2012. 520 p. Soft cover. ISBN 978-5-397-02536-2.
This book is for those who want to know what has been new in evolutionary theory over the past three decades and whether this new thing is consistent with the foundations of modern Darwinism that are taught at school and university.
Biologists often compare their science to physics. They would like for biology the same precision and the same unshakable laws, once and for all established for our earthly conditions. But life is several orders of magnitude more complex than physical phenomena, and therefore few such laws have been found in it so far. The natural way to establish them is through a change of ideas and new discoveries. If ideas do not change for a long time, then most often for two reasons: the teaching either reflects the essence of the object of study, or has turned into a dogma that they strive to perpetuate.
In fact, it is not always easy to distinguish between these two cases. Who admits that he believes in some theory because it’s more convenient and peaceful for him to live? Rather, they can say that they do not doubt it, since it enjoys universal recognition. But is such an argument worthy of real, ever-evolving science, which for the most part was done by brilliant lone scientists? Already by virtue of their loneliness, they were always doomed to go against the prevailing belief. And ultimately, in science, it was not the generally accepted, but the correct ideas that prevailed.
A similar collision is characteristic of the evolutionary theory represented by modern Darwinism. Darwinism is protected, supported, “developed” and taught in Russia, Europe, the USA - throughout the civilized world - as the only true teaching. But how do you know if it is actually true?
True teaching is always open to criticism. His own reflection means the ability to self-criticize. Let us remember that Charles Darwin included in “The Origin of Species” chapters VI “Difficulties of the Theory” and VII “Various Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection.” Modern followers of Darwin avoid mention of difficulties (often masking them with arbitrary extrapolations), do not accept criticism and prefer to arrogantly ignore anything that they consider to be a challenge to established ideas. It should be noted that the very fact of the long existence of the evolutionary paradigm they defend creates a misleading impression of its solid validity and boundless fruitfulness.
A correct, or rather correctly constructed, doctrine is based on provisions that can be experimentally verified and assumes the possibility of refutation (falsification). Darwinism and especially the synthetic theory of evolution, as hypothetico-deductive constructs that deny the applicability of experiment and observation to the knowledge of evolutionary mechanisms, cannot be refuted. By placing themselves above the facts, they seemed to worry about their perpetuation in advance.
It seems that comparison with the progress of genetics, a discipline especially close to evolutionary theory and which selectionists consider its foundation, provides very eloquent evidence of the state of the synthetic theory. For 60 years - a time during which the development of this theory practically stopped - molecular genetics, in particular knowledge about the organization and functioning of the genome, has made a fantastic rise. Why such a difference in the destinies of these sciences?
Let's return to the comparison of biology with physics. There are no scientists in the world who, say, instead of the laws of Newton, Dalton, Huygens or Faraday, would propose something different. And the very idea of the possibility of replacing them would seem absurd. In evolutionary theory the situation is different. Here, an alternative to Darwinism has existed throughout its history, and it is especially relevant today. There was no shortage of authors proposing new theories. These were outstanding thinkers and naturalists, people of high scientific intuition, but at one time they were ridiculed or ignored and regarded as the “prodigal sons” of science. Now their finest hour has come, and we will tell in the book about their bold hypotheses.
Therefore, it is natural to ask everyone who is involved in preserving the status quo in evolutionary theory: why are we still presented with the model of evolution of the 1930s and 1940s in textbooks on this discipline and, accordingly, in lectures by professors and teachers? Why aren't new models even mentioned? It is clear that only established, comprehensively tested ideas are included in textbooks, but then the question is appropriate: how many years should new knowledge that has passed experimental testing be “held” and wait for its turn? Wouldn't it be more correct to start by presenting in the textbook, along with the canonical theory, other views?
We have no doubt that sooner or later new knowledge will make its way. Wanting to bring this moment closer in every possible way, we decided to write a book in which all the latest achievements of evolutionary thought of a non-Darwinian orientation, as well as similar ideas of the past, would be collected together. More precisely, we tried to trace the fate of every noteworthy idea from its inception to the present day.
...
The author expresses deep gratitude to Yu.P. Altukhov, L.I. Korochkin, M.B. Evgeniev, M.D. Golubovsky, Yu.V. Tchaikovsky, E.A. Aronova for generous advisory assistance and provision of reprints of publications and rare editions and materials, as well as D.B. Sokolov, O.Ya. Pilipchuk (Kiev) and P.E. Tarasov for their participation in the technical design of the book. I also consider it my pleasant duty to express sincere gratitude to my colleagues from Holland - Mrs. Wendy Faber and Mr. Wim Heiting - for providing the portrait of J.P. Lotsi, which has never been published in Russia.
...
Vadim Ivanovich Nazarov (1933--2009)
Graduated from the Faculty of Biology and Soils of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov in 1957, majoring in zoology; in 1969 - correspondence postgraduate study at Moscow State University. From June 24, 1968 he worked at the Institute of the History of Natural Science and Technology. In 1969 he defended his candidate's dissertation, and in 1990 his doctoral dissertation. In 2000, he was elected to the position of chief researcher.
The main works, including four books, are devoted to the study of the history of evolutionary thought of the non-Darwinian orientation of the 20th century, as well as the history of biology of the 20th century in general. According to the scientific community, the monograph “The Doctrine of Macroevolution. On the Path to a New Synthesis” (1991) made a significant contribution to evolutionary theory. The book is widely cited and widely used in the pedagogical practice of higher education in Russia and neighboring countries. It is included in the list of recommended literature given in a number of textbooks.
Applicants entering graduate school at IIET have been widely using the collective monograph “History of Biology. From the beginning of the 20th century to the present day” (1975), the material collected and edited by the author, for almost 30 years.
Between 1970 and 1989 V.I. Nazarov was the executive secretary of the “Historical and Biological Research” series. Until 2001, for 22 years he was the permanent secretary of the dissertation council K003.11.01. During this period, about 45 applicants and several applicants for a doctorate successfully defended their dissertations.
For 5 years (until 2001) he led a problem group in the social history of biology.
Information field of life.
Simakov Yu.G.
“Chemistry and Life”, 1983, No. 3, p. 88.
http://ttizm.narod.ru/gizn/infpg.htm
A person takes for granted the harmony of living things, sometimes admires it and often does not think about how this harmony is built and developed. But isn’t the genetic program of living creatures written down the traits inherent in them and their descendants, down to the tiny spot on a mollusk shell or the characteristic head movement of a mother and daughter? Recorded! However, how can this record be unfolded in space, during the development of the organism? After all, it is necessary to observe not only the size, shape, structure and functions of any organ of a plant or animal, but also their finest biochemistry. Even growth must be stopped in time.
Biologists cannot yet answer many questions that the most prosaic picture has posed to them - the picture of the development of organisms, or, as they say in science, morphogenesis. And it is not for nothing that the prominent American biologist E. Sinnot said that “morphogenesis, since it is associated with the most distinctive feature of living things - organization, is a crossroads where all paths of biological research converge.”
What signs are there at this intersection? Where is the spatial record itself stored, which “translates” the chemical language of the genetic code into a real three-dimensional structure, into the body?
Most likely, any living cell stores a program for its future location; the cell seems to “know” where it needs to stop, when to stop dividing, and what form to take in order to become part of a particular organ. The cells that build the body not only stop growing, dividing and taking on different shapes at exactly the right time, they specialize or differentiate, and sometimes even die, in order to obtain the necessary spatial structure. For example, this is how fingers appear on the limbs of the embryo - the tissues between the future fingers die, and a five-fingered hand is formed from the plate - the rudiment of the hand. An unknown sculptor, sculpting a living creature, not only redistributes, but also removes unnecessary material in order to realize what is intended by the genetic program.
Molecular genetics has elucidated the ways of transmitting information from DNA to messenger RNA, which in turn serves as a matrix for the synthesis of proteins from amino acids. The influence of genes on cell metabolism and their synthesis is now being carefully studied. But when embodying the spatial structure of, say, a radish tuber or a fancy shell, you can hardly get by with genes alone. Doubts of this kind have long agitated the minds of embryologists, and it was among them, people involved in the spatial differentiation of cells, that the concept of the so-called morphogenetic field appeared. The meaning of many theories on this topic comes down to the fact that there is a special field around the embryo or fetus, which, as it were, molds organs and entire organisms from the cellular mass.
The most developed concepts of the embryonic field belong to the Austrian P. Weiss, who worked for many years in the USA, and the Soviet scientist A.G. Gurvich and N.K. Koltsov (see A.G. Gurvich “The Theory of Biological Field”, M.” 1944, and the chapter “Field Theory” in B.P. Tokin’s book “General Embryology”, M., 1968). According to Weiss and Gurvich, The morphogenetic field does not have the usual physical and chemical characteristics. Gurvich called it a biological field. In contrast, N.K. Koltsov believed that the field that commands the integrity of the development of the organism is composed of ordinary physical fields.
Weiss wrote that the initial field acts on cellular material, forms from it certain rudiments of the organism, and that as development progresses, more and more new fields are formed, commanding the development of organs and the entire body of the individual. In short, the field develops, then the embryo itself, and the cells of the body seem to be passive - their activity is controlled by the morphogenetic field. The concept of the biological field by A.G. Gurvich is based on the fact that it is inherent in every cell of the body. However, the scope of the field extends beyond the boundaries of the cell; the cell fields seem to merge into a single field, which changes with the spatial redistribution of cells.
According to both concepts, the biological field develops in the same way as the embryo. However, according to Weiss, it does this independently, and according to Gurvich’s theory, under the influence of embryonic cells.
But I think that if we take the independent development of the biological field as an axiom, then our knowledge is unlikely to move forward. For, in order to somehow explain the spatial development of the biological field itself, it is necessary to introduce certain fields of the 2nd, 3rd order, and so on. If the cells themselves build such a field for themselves, and then change and move under its influence, then the morphogenetic field acts as a tool for distributing cells in space. But how then can we explain the shape of the future organism? Let's say the shape of a buttercup or a hippopotamus.
According to Gurvich's theory, the source of the vector field is the cell nucleus, and only by adding the vectors is the total field obtained. But organisms that have only one nucleus feel quite good. For example, the three-centimeter-long single-celled alga Acetabularia has rhizoids resembling roots, a thin stalk and an umbrella. How did a single nuclear field produce such a bizarre shape? If the rhizoid containing the nucleus is cut off from an acetabularia, it will not lose its ability to regenerate. For example, if she is deprived of her umbrella, it will grow again. Where then is spatial memory located?
Let's look for a way out of all these inconsistencies. Why must the biological field necessarily change during the development of the organism, like the embryo itself? Isn’t it more logical to think that the field does not change from the very first stages of development, but serves as the matrix that the embryo seeks to fill? But then where did the field itself come from and why does it so clearly correspond to the genetic record inherent in a given organism?
And is it not worth suggesting that the field that controls development is generated by the interaction of the helical structure of DNA, where the original genetic record is stored, with the surrounding space?
After all, this can give, as it were, a spatial record of a future creature, be it the same buttercup or a hippopotamus. As the number of cells increases during their division, the fields formed by DNA are summed up; the overall field grows, but retains a certain organization unique to it.
The field of the body, which welds together all its parts and commands development, in my opinion, is more accurately called an individual information field. What is its supposed nature? According to some concepts, this is a complex of physical and chemical factors that form a single “force field” (N.K. Koltsov). According to other researchers, the biological field may include all the currently known physical and chemical field interactions, but represents a qualitatively new level of these interactions. And since any creature has an inherent individuality, given by the genetic code, the information field of the organism is purely individual.
In 1981, West German researcher A. Gierer published the idea that the role of the genetic apparatus is reduced primarily to generating signals to replace one morphogenetic field with another. If this is so, then the fields around any creature, like a “shirt,” change when the organism grows to the boundaries of the next “clothing.” From this point of view, the development of the morphogenetic field can be viewed as a chain of jumps in the restructuring of spatial information.
No one denies that the nucleus of any living cell contains the entire genetic program of the organism. During differentiation in different organs, only that part of the genetic program begins to work, which commands the synthesis of proteins in this particular organ or even in a separate cell. But the information field probably does not have such a specialization - it is always whole. Otherwise, it is simply impossible to explain its preservation even in a small part of the body.
This assumption is not speculative. To show the integrity of the information field in each part of the body, let’s take living beings that are convenient for this.
The slimy fungus Myxomycete Dictyostelium has a curious life cycle. At first, its cells seem to be scattered and move in the form of “amoebas” across the soil, then one or more cells secrete the substance akrazine, which serves as a signal “everyone come to me.” The "amoebas" crawl together and form a multicellular plasmodium, which looks like a worm-like slug. This slug crawls out onto a dry place and turns into a small, thin-legged fungus with a round head containing spores. Right before our eyes, a bizarre organism is assembled from cells, which, as it were, fills its already existing information field. Well, if you reduce the number of merging cells by half, what will you get - half a fungus or a whole one? That's what they did in the laboratories. (Experiments with fungi are presented in the books by D. Trinkaus “From Cells to Organs”, “World”, 1971 and D. Ibert “Interaction of Developing Systems”, “World”, 1968.) From half of the “amoebas” a fungus of the same shape is obtained, only half as much. They left 1/4 of the cells, they merged again and gave rise to a fungus with all its inherent forms, only even smaller in size.
And isn’t it possible that any number of cells carries information about the shape they need to put together when they come together? True, there is a limit somewhere, and a small number of cells may not be enough to build a fungus. However, knowing this, it is difficult to abandon the idea that the form of the fungus is embedded in the information field even when the body is scattered into individual cells. When cells merge, their information fields are summed up, but this summation looks more like a proliferation, an inflating of the same form.
And planarian flatworms can restore the appearance of 1/300 of their body. This is what is said about this in C. Bodemer’s book “Modern Embryology” (World, 1971). If you cut planaria with a razor into pieces of different sizes and leave them alone for three weeks, the cells will change their specialization and rebuild into whole animals. After three weeks, instead of motionless flatworms chopped into pieces, planarians crawl along the bottom of the crystallizer, almost equal to adults, and crumbs that are barely noticeable to the eye. But in all of them, big and small, a head with eyes and olfactory “ears” placed to the sides is visible; they are all the same in shape, although they differ in size hundreds of times. Each creature appeared from a different number of cells, but according to one “blueprint”. So it turns out that any piece of the planarian’s body carried an entire information field.
I carried out similar experiments with unicellular organisms, with large, two millimeters tall, ciliates spirostomas ("Citology", 1978, vol. 20, no. 7). Such ciliates can be cut into 60 parts with a microscalpel under a microscope, and each of them is restored again into a whole cell. Ciliates grow, but not indefinitely. The cells, having reached their required size, seem to run up against an invisible border. This is the boundary that the information field can set.
It turns out that the information field equally serves unicellular, colonial and multicellular organisms. And shouldn’t we assume that even before fertilization, germ cells carry ready-made information fields? And during fertilization, when the sperm and egg merge and their genetic material is combined, the information fields are summed up, giving an intermediate or generalized type, with the characteristics of the mother and father.
Cells without nuclei can live, but lose the ability to regenerate and self-heal. True, remember about acetabularia, in which a new umbrella grows without a nucleus. And although this can happen only once, this is already enough to suggest the incredible: the information field remains around the cell for some time, even if it is deprived of the main genetic material!
The sizes of living beings are fixed genetically. A tiny mouse and a huge elephant grow from eggs that are almost equal in size. Even creatures of the same species, whose genetic development program is very, very close, and which easily interbreed, can be very different in size. Compare, for example, a Chihuahua dog that you can put in your pocket, and a huge Great Dane.
Conditions for the body can be good or bad. An organism can grow quickly or slowly, but normally it does not cross the invisible, genetically fixed limit of its size. Indeed, apart from the individual information field, there is no other mechanism for controlling growth that would accurately reproduce the hereditary record in the nucleus of any cell and at the same time unite all cells into a single whole.
Biologists have put a lot of work into identifying the reasons that prompt a cell to begin division - mitosis. If people learned to control this process, the sword would be raised over malignant tumors, in which cell division is still uncontrollable.
In fact, why does the stormy wave of cell divisions subside in a wound after it has healed, but in malignant tumors it rages while the organism is alive? At first, the theory of wound hormones was used to explain this phenomenon. It’s as if there are substances in the cells that, when the tissue is injured, flow into the damaged area and cause the cells surrounding the wound to rapidly divide. As the wound heals, the concentration of hormones drops and cell division stops. Alas, the theory did not come true, and it was replaced by the opposite idea put forward by V. S. Bullough, which states that special substances, kalons, suppress mitosis at a certain concentration. After injury, the Kaylon concentration drops and mitoses resume until the damage is repaired and the Kaylon concentration reaches the proper level. Experiments have shown that the kelons in different organs are different, but they are by no means species-specific. For example, a drug made from cod skin can stop mitoses in the skin of a human finger.
Look at the tip of your finger, you will see papillary lines that are unique to you. If damaged, they can be completely destroyed. However, if a scar does not form, the papillary pattern will reappear after regeneration. Are the Kaylons really capable of such sophisticated art? The information field would be much better suited to the role of a painter.
Not long ago I experimented with the epithelium of the lens of a frog's eye (Izvestia of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1974, No. 2). Each time the lens was injured, mitoses appeared in undamaged parts of the epithelium, and the band of mitoses quite accurately repeated the configuration of the injury. And one more strange feature: the area limited by the mitotic band does not depend on the magnitude of the injury. The theories of wound hormones and kelons do not explain anything here. With chemical regulation, the area covered by mitoses would depend on the magnitude of the injury. Is it not the information field that conveys the form of trauma?
Of course, it is too early to draw conclusions, and further reasoning can only lead to new questions. But I still believe that the time will come when many things in developmental biology will have to be looked at differently.
Brief comment.
Belousov L.V.
In the article by Yu.G. Simakov touched upon very important questions of biology that have not yet received a satisfactory solution. In fact, how exactly does morphogenesis proceed and how can a multicellular embryo or even one cell restore its shape and structure after sometimes very deep violations of integrity? Drawing the attention of readers to this can only be approved.
The author briefly outlines the theories of morphogenesis by P. Weiss, A.G. Gurvich and N.K. Koltsova, however, does not mention some essential aspects of these concepts, and then moves on to her hypothesis of the “information field”. Its main idea is that the field does not change from the very first stages of development, but serves as the matrix that the embryo seeks to fill. This idea goes back to the theory of “morphaesthesia” by the biologist Noll, expressed in the second half of the last century. Noll argued that a developing organism senses a discrepancy between its immediate and final form and strives to smooth out this discrepancy. This idea was also developed in the early (1912, 1914) works of A.G. Gurvich according to the so-called “dynamically preformed morph”.
Hypothesis Yu.G. Simakova, in my opinion, so far provides only an apparent solution to the problem, as if, instead of searching for a solution to the problem, we would immediately look at the answer, name it and claim that the problem has been solved. The answer in this case is known: the body perfectly regulates its shape, structure and sometimes size. The whole question is how exactly he does it.
In biology, in my opinion, there are now several promising approaches to solving this problem. The first of them is the further development of the concepts of biological fields that the author talks about. Including the development of the principle of physiological gradients, which has now been embodied in the concept of so-called positional information. Although this concept is not infallible and cannot be considered universal, it still cannot be ignored. Another promising direction is the development of the central idea of A.G. Gurvich that the very form (geometry, topology) of a developing organism contains sufficient grounds for the development of the next form and so on. This direction can incorporate the ideas of K. Waddington, R. Thom and others about stable and unstable forms.
Recently, a completely different direction has emerged and is intensively developing, which came to biology from mathematics and theoretical physics - the so-called synergetics, or the theory of dissipative structures. In principle, the phenomena of shape regulation and, in general, the phenomena of morphogenesis could be explained in terms of synergetics, although here there are still many serious ambiguities and inconsistencies. Personally, I think that the optimal solution to the problems of morphogenesis and shape regulation lies, perhaps, somewhere between the theories of biological fields and dissipative structures. It is possible that these directions will merge.
In any case, the surest way is a painstaking, step-by-step experimental and theoretical study of the problem. I would also like to warn against seductive nihilism: for example, the denial of chemical regulators of growth and morphogenesis. Of course, their action must still be regulated by something, but this does not mean that chemical regulators do not exist at all.
And one last thing. The term “biofield” has now acquired an anti-scientific flavor: the word “biofield” is used by some subjects who have nothing in common with science. It is unacceptable to identify their views with the scientific heritage of major scientists. To make this demarcation line clear, I propose not to use the term “biofield” in relation to Weiss, Gurvich and other scientists, which they themselves never used, but rather used the phrase “biological field”.
Reference:
Simakov Yuri Georgievich(born 1939), biologist-zoologist, Doctor of Biological Sciences. In 1966 he graduated from Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov, works in the field of hydrobiology and aquatic toxicology (Institute of Medical and Biological Problems of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences), pays great attention to the problems of ecological balance in the environment.
In 1976, Yu.G. Simakov began to take part in UFO research. He is known in ufological circles for the first time he proposed the use of living microorganisms to study traces of UFO landings and actively collaborated with F.Yu. Siegel, who even proposed calling this method of ufological research the “Simakov method.”
Belousov Lev Vladimirovich(born 1935), Doctor of Biological Sciences, Professor at Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, academician of the New York Academy of Sciences.
