Abstract— Science progresses through the development of integrative theories that unify more and more subsidiary theories. Progress in phylogenetic theory comes from mutual reconciliation with the theoretical structure of other branches of evolutionary biology, such as developmental biology, population biology, and population genetics. The notions of species, individuality, and scalar hierarchy are keys to this reconciliation. Conflation of the results and simplifying assumptions of particular discovery operations with the nature of the entities that we search for is a continuing problem in inferential biology. Other problems extend from the fact that scientific discovery operations address sets of entities and sets of interactions, even when the definitions employed by the operations are not rigorous set-definers, but rather generalized descriptive approximations which summarize similarities among the parts of hierarchically more general entities. As an example, in the discovery methods of phylogenetic systematics, organisms (parts of species) are treated as if they are extensions of a set (the lineage considered as a set), rather than as indefinable parts of a particular (the lineage as a system). This simplifying assumption constitutes treating scalar hierarchies as if they are specification hierarchies and, although this may be necessary for scientific progress, it can lead to over-reductionism if applied uncritically. We expect all analytical techniques to fail at some frequency in part because the limits and reality of the entities that scientists attempt to discover do not extend from definitions used in discovery operations, For this reason, all operational definitions in systematics must be patched by theoretical (= process) claims to one degree or another to give us a more complete representation of evolutionary history. In our view, ontology is the result of reconciliation of theoretical expectations and lines of operational evidence (both of “direct” observation and logical techniques). This “consilience of inductions” provides a general picture of the world and illuminates the limitations of particular discovery operations. As our understanding of the lawful nature of the universe improves, we are able to refine the definitions used by our discovery operations. Against the backdrop of the payoffs to evolutionary biology, the various definitions of species are most starkly compared. In cases where tokogeny is not inherently hierarchical, the level of organization chosen as the basic unit that maximizes the explanatory power of phylogenetic hypotheses is the level of Evolutionary Species, which is that of largest integrating lineages, rather than the level of individual organisms. Nevertheless, we recognize that our discovery operations rest on observations of organismal characteristics. The Phylogenetic Species Concept is, at best, the operational equivalent of Evolutionary Species, but may identify parts of Evolutionary Species that are only temporarily isolated. The cost of this kind of error is judged to be small compared with the alternative of recognizing paraphyletic “species” on the basis of potential to recombine. Metaphyly, concerns about exclusiveness of lineages as something more than an analytical issue, and “an escape from species” through operationalism are judged to stem from errors of overreduction.
暂无摘要（点击查看原文获取完整内容）
Achieving complete reproducibility in science, particularly in research fields such as biodiversity, is challenging due to analytical choices, bias and interpretation. Here, we examine examples of reproducibility in biological systematics, ecology, and molecular biology. To mitigate the impact of interpretation and analytical choices, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has provided potential tools. In the present work, while emphasizing the need for methodological rigor and transparency, we acknowledge the role of interpretation in activities such as coding biological characters and detecting morphological patterns in nature. We explore the opportunities and limitations associated with the synergy between big data and AI in molecular biology, emphasizing the need for a more comprehensive and integrated approach based on dataset quality and usefulness. We conclude by advocating for AI-based tools to assist biologists, reinforcing consilience as a criterion for scientific validity without hindering scientific progress.
Since the early 1990s, ecologists and evolutionary biologists have aggregated primary research using meta-analytic methods to understand ecological and evolutionary phenomena. Meta-analyses can resolve long-standing disputes, dispel spurious claims, and generate new research questions. At their worst, however, meta-analysis publications are wolves in sheep's clothing: subjective with biased conclusions, hidden under coats of objective authority. Conclusions can be rendered unreliable by inappropriate statistical methods, problems with the methods used to select primary research, or problems within the primary research itself. Because of these risks, meta-analyses are increasingly conducted as part of systematic reviews, which use structured, transparent, and reproducible methods to collate and summarise evidence. For readers to determine whether the conclusions from a systematic review or meta-analysis should be trusted - and to be able to build upon the review - authors need to report what they did, why they did it, and what they found. Complete, transparent, and reproducible reporting is measured by 'reporting quality'. To assess perceptions and standards of reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in ecology and evolutionary biology, we surveyed 208 researchers with relevant experience (as authors, reviewers, or editors), and conducted detailed evaluations of 102 systematic review and meta-analysis papers published between 2010 and 2019. Reporting quality was far below optimal and approximately normally distributed. Measured reporting quality was lower than what the community perceived, particularly for the systematic review methods required to measure trustworthiness. The minority of assessed papers that referenced a guideline (~16%) showed substantially higher reporting quality than average, and surveyed researchers showed interest in using a reporting guideline to improve reporting quality. The leading guideline for improving reporting quality of systematic reviews is the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Here we unveil an extension of PRISMA to serve the meta-analysis community in ecology and evolutionary biology: PRISMA-EcoEvo (version 1.0). PRISMA-EcoEvo is a checklist of 27 main items that, when applicable, should be reported in systematic review and meta-analysis publications summarising primary research in ecology and evolutionary biology. In this explanation and elaboration document, we provide guidance for authors, reviewers, and editors, with explanations for each item on the checklist, including supplementary examples from published papers. Authors can consult this PRISMA-EcoEvo guideline both in the planning and writing stages of a systematic review and meta-analysis, to increase reporting quality of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers and editors can use the checklist to assess reporting quality in the manuscripts they review. Overall, PRISMA-EcoEvo is a resource for the ecology and evolutionary biology community to facilitate transparent and comprehensively reported systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
This technical monograph provides a comprehensive overview of the field of quantum biology. It approaches quantum biology from a physical perspective with core quantum mechanical concepts presented foremost to provide a theoretical foundation for the field. An extensive body of research is covered to clarify the significance of quantum biology as a scientific field, outlining the field's long-standing importance in the historical development of quantum theory. This lays the essential groundwork to enable further advances in nanomedicine and biotechnology. Written for academics, biological science researchers, physicists, biochemists, medical technologists, and students of quantum mechanics, this text brings clarity to fundamental advances being made in the emerging science of quantum biology.
This article frames the relation between biology and physics by characterizing the former as a subdiscipline rather than a special case of the latter. To do this, we posit biological physics as the science of living matter in contrast to classic biophysics, the study of organismal properties by physical techniques. At the scale of the individual cell, living matter is nonunitary, i.e., not composed of aggregated subunits, and has features (e.g., intracellular organizational arrangements and biomolecular condensates) that are unlike any materials of the nonliving world. In transiently or constitutively multicellular forms (social microorganisms, animals, plants), living matter sustains physical processes that are generic (shared with nonliving matter, e.g., subunit communication by molecular diffusion in cellular slime molds), biogeneric (analogous to nonliving matter but realized through cellular activities, e.g., subunit demixing in animal embryos) or nongeneric (pertaining to sui generis materials, e.g., budding of active solids in plants). This "forms of matter" perspective is philosophically situated in the dialectical materialism of Engels and Hessen and the multilevel physica
Biological systems are generally complicated and/or complex. In the former approach, one sets up a model with a large number of parameters to describe the system in detail. The latter approach focuses on understanding the universal aspects of biological systems. In this case, an appropriate simple model represents a universality class. The extraction of universal properties is supported by evolutionary robustness and the reduction of dimensionality in high-dimensional states. Integrating the data-driven omics approach with the universality approach is an important step in systems biology.
Recent studies have demonstrated the feasibility of modeling single-cell data as natural languages and the potential of leveraging powerful large language models (LLMs) for understanding cell biology. However, a comprehensive evaluation of LLMs' performance on language-driven single-cell analysis tasks still remains unexplored. Motivated by this challenge, we introduce CellVerse, a unified language-centric question-answering benchmark that integrates four types of single-cell multi-omics data and encompasses three hierarchical levels of single-cell analysis tasks: cell type annotation (cell-level), drug response prediction (drug-level), and perturbation analysis (gene-level). Going beyond this, we systematically evaluate the performance across 14 open-source and closed-source LLMs ranging from 160M to 671B on CellVerse. Remarkably, the experimental results reveal: (1) Existing specialist models (C2S-Pythia) fail to make reasonable decisions across all sub-tasks within CellVerse, while generalist models such as Qwen, Llama, GPT, and DeepSeek family models exhibit preliminary understanding capabilities within the realm of cell biology. (2) The performance of current LLMs falls short
Advances in biology have mostly relied on theories that were subsequently revised, expanded or eventually refuted using experimental and other means. Theoretical biology used to primarily provide a basis to rationally examine the frameworks within which biological experiments were carried out and to shed light on overlooked gaps in understanding. Today, however, theoretical biology has generally become synonymous with computational and mathematical biology. This could in part be explained by a relatively recent tendency in which a "data first", rather than a "theory first", approach is preferred. Moreover, generating hypotheses has at times become procedural rather than theoretical. This situation leaves our understanding enmeshed in data, which should be disentangled from much noise. Given the many unresolved questions in biology and medicine, it seems apt to revive the role of pure theory in the biological sciences. This paper makes the case for a "philosophical biology" (philbiology), distinct from but quite complementary to philosophy of biology (philobiology), which would entail biological investigation through philosophical approaches. Philbiology would thus be a reincarnatio
Systems biology relies on mathematical models that often involve complex and intractable likelihood functions, posing challenges for efficient inference and model selection. Generative models, such as normalizing flows, have shown remarkable ability in approximating complex distributions in various domains. However, their application in systems biology for approximating intractable likelihood functions remains unexplored. Here, we elucidate a framework for leveraging normalizing flows to approximate complex likelihood functions inherent to systems biology models. By using normalizing flows in the Simulation-based inference setting, we demonstrate a method that not only approximates a likelihood function but also allows for model inference in the model selection setting. We showcase the effectiveness of this approach on real-world systems biology problems, providing practical guidance for implementation and highlighting its advantages over traditional computational methods.
Understanding the biological mechanisms of disease is crucial for medicine, and in particular, for drug discovery. AI-powered analysis of genome-scale biological data holds great potential in this regard. The increasing availability of single-cell RNA sequencing data has enabled the development of large foundation models for disease biology. However, existing foundation models only modestly improve over task-specific models in downstream applications. Here, we explored two avenues for improving single-cell foundation models. First, we scaled the pre-training data to a diverse collection of 116 million cells, which is larger than those used by previous models. Second, we leveraged the availability of large-scale biological annotations as a form of supervision during pre-training. We trained the \model family of models comprising six transformer-based state-of-the-art single-cell foundation models with 70 million, 160 million, and 400 million parameters. We vetted our models on several downstream evaluation tasks, including identifying the underlying disease state of held-out donors not seen during training, distinguishing between diseased and healthy cells for disease conditions and
We developed a theory showing that under appropriate normalizations and rescalings, temperature response curves show a remarkably regular behavior and follow a general, universal law. The impressive universality of temperature response curves remained hidden due to various curve-fitting models not well-grounded in first principles. In addition, this framework has the potential to explain the origin of different scaling relationships in thermal performance in biology, from molecules to ecosystems. Here, we summarize the background, principles and assumptions, predictions, implications, and possible extensions of this theory.
AlphaFold 3 represents a transformative advancement in computational biology, enhancing protein structure prediction through novel multi-scale transformer architectures, biologically informed cross-attention mechanisms, and geometry-aware optimization strategies. These innovations dramatically improve predictive accuracy and generalization across diverse protein families, surpassing previous methods. Crucially, AlphaFold 3 embodies a paradigm shift toward differentiable simulation, bridging traditional static structural modeling with dynamic molecular simulations. By reframing protein folding predictions as a differentiable process, AlphaFold 3 serves as a foundational framework for integrating deep learning with physics-based molecular
In this paper, we propose and study several inverse problems of determining unknown parameters in nonlocal nonlinear coupled PDE systems, including the potentials, nonlinear interaction functions and time-fractional orders. In these coupled systems, we enforce non-negativity of the solutions, aligning with realistic scenarios in biology and ecology. There are several salient features of our inverse problem study: the drastic reduction in measurement/observation data due to averaging effects, the nonlinear coupling between multiple equations, and the nonlocality arising from fractional-type derivatives. These factors present significant challenges to our inverse problem, and such inverse problems have never been explored in previous literature. To address these challenges, we develop new and effective schemes. Our approach involves properly controlling the injection of different source terms to obtain multiple sets of mean flux data. This allows us to achieve unique identifiability results and accurately determine the unknown parameters. Finally, we establish a connection between our study and practical applications in biology, further highlighting the relevance of our work in real-
It is often stated that there are no laws in biology, where everything is contingent and could have been otherwise, being solely the result of historical accidents. Furthermore, the customary introduction of fundamental biological entities such as individual organisms, cells, genes, catalysts and motors remains largely descriptive; constructive approaches involving deductive reasoning appear, in comparison, almost absent. As a consequence, both the logical content and principles of biology need to be reconsidered. The present article describes an inquiry into the foundations of biology. The foundations of biology are built in terms of elements, logic and principles, using both the language and the general methods employed in other disciplines. This approach assumes the existence of a certain unity of human knowledge that transcends discipline boundaries. Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason is revised through the introduction of the complementary concepts of symmetry and asymmetry and of necessity and contingency. This is used to explain how these four concepts are involved in the elaboration of theories or laws of nature. Four fundamental theories of biology are then identifie
Synthetic biology is the engineering of cellular networks. It combines principles of engineering and the knowledge of biological networks to program the behavior of cells. Computational modeling techniques in conjunction with molecular biology techniques have been successful in constructing biological devices such as switches, oscillators, and gates. The ambition of synthetic biology is to construct complex systems from such fundamental devices, much in the same way electronic circuits are built from basic parts. As this ambition becomes a reality, engineering concepts such as interchangeable parts and encapsulation will find their way into biology. We realize that there is a need for computational tools that would support such engineering concepts in biology. As a solution, we have developed the software Athena that allows biological models to be constructed as modules. Modules can be connected to one another without altering the modules themselves. In addition, Athena houses various tools useful for designing synthetic networks including tools to perform simulations, automatically derive transcription rate expressions, and view and edit synthetic DNA sequences. New tools can be i
Though it goes without saying that linear algebra is fundamental to mathematical biology, polynomial algebra is less visible. In this article, we will give a brief tour of four diverse biological problems where multivariate polynomials play a central role -- a subfield that is sometimes called "algebraic biology." Namely, these topics include biochemical reaction networks, Boolean models of gene regulatory networks, algebraic statistics and genomics, and place fields in neuroscience. After that, we will summarize the history of discrete and algebraic structures in mathematical biology, from their early appearances in the late 1960s to the current day. Finally, we will discuss the role of algebraic biology in the modern classroom and curriculum, including resources in the literature and relevant software. Our goal is to make this article widely accessible, reaching the mathematical biologist who knows no algebra, the algebraist who knows no biology, and especially the interested student who is curious about the synergy between these two seemingly unrelated fields.
The last decade has witnessed a rapid growth in understanding of the pivotal roles of mechanical stresses and physical forces in cell biology. As a result an integrated view of cell biology is evolving, where genetic and molecular features are scrutinized hand in hand with physical and mechanical characteristics of cells. Physics of liquid crystals has emerged as a burgeoning new frontier in cell biology over the past few years, fueled by an increasing identification of orientational order and topological defects in cell biology, spanning scales from subcellular filaments to individual cells and multicellular tissues. Here, we provide an account of most recent findings and developments together with future promises and challenges in this rapidly evolving interdisciplinary research direction.
Although reproducibility is a core tenet of the scientific method, it remains challenging to reproduce many results. Surprisingly, this also holds true for computational results in domains such as systems biology where there have been extensive standardization efforts. For example, Tiwari et al. recently found that they could only repeat 50% of published simulation results in systems biology. Toward improving the reproducibility of computational systems research, we identified several resources that investigators can leverage to make their research more accessible, executable, and comprehensible by others. In particular, we identified several domain standards and curation services, as well as powerful approaches pioneered by the software engineering industry that we believe many investigators could adopt. Together, we believe these approaches could substantially enhance the reproducibility of systems biology research. In turn, we believe enhanced reproducibility would accelerate the development of more sophisticated models that could inform precision medicine and synthetic biology.
With the completion of human genome mapping, the focus of scientists seeking to explain the biological complexity of living systems is shifting from analyzing the individual components (such as a particular gene or biochemical reaction) to understanding the set of interactions amongst the large number of components that results in the different functions of the organism. To this end, the area of systems biology attempts to achieve a "systems-level" description of biology by focusing on the network of interactions instead of the characteristics of its isolated parts. In this article, we briefly describe some of the emerging themes of research in "network" biology, looking at dynamical processes occurring at the two different length scales of within the cell and between cells, viz., the intra-cellular signaling network and the nervous system. We show that focusing on the systems-level aspects of these problems allows one to observe surprising and illuminating common themes amongst them.