Generalization through similarity: motif discourse in the discovery and elaboration of zinc finger proteins

L Bruce Railsback,Celeste Condit

doi:10.1186/1747-5333-2-5

Abstract

BackgroundBiological organisms and their components are better conceived within categories based on similarity rather than on identity. Biologists routinely operate with similarity-based concepts such as "model organism" and "motif." There has been little exploration of the characteristics of the similarity-based categories that exist in biology. This study uses the case of the discovery and classification of zinc finger proteins to explore how biological categories based in similarity are represented.ResultsThe existence of a category of "zinc finger proteins" was based in 1) a lumpy gradient of similarity, 2) a link between function and structure, 3) establishment of a range of appearance across systems and organisms, and 4) an evolutionary locus as a historically based common-ground.ConclusionMore systematic application of the idea of similarity-based categorization might eliminate the assumption that biological characteristics can only contribute to narrow categorization of humans. It also raises possibilities for refining data-driven exploration efforts.

Highlights

Biological beings can be understood as physical matter arranged in particular sets of patterns that create characteristics different from other physical matter
One of the key changes in scientific assumptions wrought by the blossoming of biology has been a shift from identity to similarity as a basis for classification and generalization
Unlike fluorine atoms or muons, which have historically been presumed to be identical within their classes, no two biological beings are exactly the same

Summary

Results

The existence of a category of "zinc finger proteins" was based in 1) a lumpy gradient of similarity, 2) a link between function and structure, 3) establishment of a range of appearance across systems and organisms, and 4) an evolutionary locus as a historically based common-ground

Conclusion

Introduction

E C d i n

Wilczek F

14. Fahnestock J: Rhetorical Figures in Science New York

23. Allen JF

28. Smalheiser NR

30. Gillies DA