A way of thinking

Glucose plays a vital role in providing biochemical energy. We are familiar with its chemical formula C6H12O6 and may even be familiar with diagrammatic representations of its ring-like molecular structure. We may also be aware of the ratio of its atoms C:H:O being 1:2:1. In particular, the ratio of hydrogen (H) to oxygen (O) is 2:1 and that, of course, is the same as in water. Not everybody notices this until told, and then there is something of a ‘eureka’ moment. Thus, another way of thinking about the glucose molecule that is also not immediately obvious is thinking of it as 6 carbon atoms and 6 water molecules. Indeed, the chemical formula for all of the simple sugars is (CH2O)n (where n is a number greater than or equal to 3). Put simply, each sugar is a carbon atom and a water molecule n times over, depending on the sugar in question.

This in turn takes us back to where sugar comes from: plants and photosynthesis. Here in very simple terms, a molecule containing one carbon atom (carbon dioxide) and a water molecule are turned into glucose—with some oxygen left over and released into the atmosphere for us to breathe.

Embryonic problem-solving

As taught, embryology often seems a lot less dynamic than might be expected. After all, it deals with something going through rapid change. Something recognisably human is formed from a single cell in only a matter of weeks. A lot of embryology is primarily focused on how organs attain their final form. This may be better described as ‘organogenesis’. What of the intermediate or transitional forms that organs take before attaining their final forms? What is going on at a fundamental level?

Embryology can be considered as organismal problem-solving. For example, initially the embryo is formed of a ball of cells—a morula. This reaches a limiting size when it can no longer rely on the passive diffusion of nutrients, respiratory gases and waste products in and out of this simple ball. The cell mass then forms itself into a hollow ball called a blastula. As this enlarges, something different is needed to allow development to continue. Thus, the hollow ball folds in on itself to form a gastrula.

What I have been describing (albeit rather simplistically) is a series of problem-solving steps. At each transition noted above, a problem is being solved. Embryology is not just the formation of an organism as an object; it is the production of a problem-solving entity. The constant problem any embryo needs to solve is how to survive. It does this in different ways at different times depending on what it happens to be like at that time.

Know thyself - differently

The Harvard geneticist and Nobel laureate Walter Gilbert (b. 1932) described the Human Genome Project as "the ultimate answer to the commandment 'know thyself'." If so, what was it about our-selves that we have learnt?

What does a sequential knowledge of base pairs say about selves?

And…
What did we expect to learn but didn’t?
What did we think we could learn but found that we couldn’t? (And maybe can’t.)

And what did we say that we would learn, knowing that we won’t, just to make sure it got funded?

Darwin’s gaze

According to a former colleague of mine, Charles Darwin's gardener was bemused by how Darwin would stop and ponder so long over things he found in his garden. My colleague never gave chapter and verse. It was perhaps too good an anecdote to need one; it was exemplary of the man even if not entirely accurate. Now with AI, I have been able to find out more. The reference seems to be to Joseph Parslow (1812-1898), who worked as Charles Darwin's butler and gardener for many years. He often observed Darwin's intense focus on the natural world. What Parslow related was, "When he was at work in the garden, he would often be seen to stop in front of a flower, or a tree, and stand for a long time, sometimes with his hands behind his back, sometimes with his head bent forward, quite motionless, as if in a trance, absorbed in deep thought." This sentiment is often paraphrased and widely reported, including by Darwin’s family and by other members of his staff. This encapsulates Darwin's meticulous observation and profound contemplation of nature, which was a hallmark of his scientific process. He was not idly looking at flowers—as most do; he was examining them with an intense, scientific curiosity. In so doing, Darwin was responsible for changing our whole worldview, including our view of ourselves.

Second Anniversary

This post marks the second anniversary of me starting this blog. I would like to thank all those who have dropped by and read my various musings… and especially those who have been here more than once and continue to return.

This blog isn’t about me. It is not about becoming a rich and famous influencer. I keep myself as anonymous as possible and I rarely look at the number of visitors I’ve had. But when I have, I've been very gratified that people have taken an interest. So, if you are reading this, be assured of my appreciation.

As I said this time last year (and may well say again this time next year), the turn of the year provides me with a good opportunity to remind myself about what I am doing… or trying to do… or think I’m trying to do. Again my intentions remain largely unaltered, and are as stated in my first 'What to Expect' post. Hawever, that page I consider undatable depending on how the blog develops.

A few of my working practices have developed over the last year but that’s about all. In any case, these should be visible to the reader.

The aim of this blog is to share things from my former academic life that cannot be shared in any other way, lest they vanish and be lost forever. If you, the reader, can use anything from these blogs, then please do so. I would be delighted if they were to find a new lease of life elsewhere. It is not necessary to refer to this blog as your source—although it would be very nice if you did.

Reminder: I post on the 3rd, 11th, 19th, and 27th days of each month and will continue to do so. This was an additional anniversary post.

Corpuscles or Cells?

When I first did a course in anatomy and physiology and we got to the part about blood, our lecturer was quite adamant about referring to red blood corpuscles, not red blood cells. He had a reason for this: red blood corpuscles did not have nuclei, and without nuclei, they could not be properly referred to as cells per se. In the 50+ years since that lecture, in every academic and clinical setting in which I have found myself, reference has always been to red blood cells—never corpuscles.

The only other time I have heard ‘corpuscles’ referred to was when I went to listen to a talk by the mountaineer Sir Chris Bonington (b. 1934). This must have been around 1990 when he came to speak at Saint David’s Hall in Cardiff. In fact, he referred to them as ‘corpuscules’. This is not a misspelling or mispronunciation. It happens to be a now obsolete version of ‘corpuscle’—but still close enough to be the only time I’ve heard a word other than ‘red blood cell’ used. Bonington was describing what a doctor on one of his expeditions was studying and how he would be required to provide samples at different altitudes.

I remember the word ‘corpuscle’ being used in the 1960s, i.e., in my youth. Use of just the word ‘corpuscle’ immediately denoted red blood corpuscles/cells. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the earliest known use of "red blood cell" dates from as early as 1850. The term "red blood corpuscle" was used earlier, with the first recorded use being in 1844. Looking further into the naming of blood cells, I find that the term ‘white blood corpuscles’ was also used in the mid-nineteenth century. I’ve never heard that term used, though. Why the phrase ‘white blood cell’ is used is perhaps a little puzzling when the more scientifically sounding word ‘leukocyte’ is available. (It’s three one-syllable words versus one three-syllable word. Perhaps nobody can remember whether it’s leukocyte with a ‘k’ or leukocyte with a ‘c’.)

And yet, I still like the idea of corpuscles. I like the way using the word 'corpuscle' distinguishes red blood cells from the other blood cells.

NB Here I have only been thinking of humans and the clinical setting where one does not expect to find nuclei in mature, fully formed red cells. There are animals that do have nucleated red blood cells. Fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds typically have nucleated red blood cells. In most mammals, mature red blood cells are not nucleated and also lack certain other organelles like mitochondria. This allows more space in which to pack haemoglobin. This, in turn, increases the cell's oxygen-carrying capacity.

Among vertebrates, non-nucleated red cells are unique to mammals. A notable exception within the class Mammalia is the family Camelidae (camels, llamas, and alpacas), which have elliptical red blood cells that retain a nucleus.

Why, supposedly, do ‘Gentlemen Prefer Blondes’?

Mention of Marilyn Monroe has sparked a minor avalanche of ideas. (I remember her dying but was never a fan.) Monroe starred with Jane Russell (1921-2011) in the film ‘Gentlemen Prefer Blondes’ (1953). This film is, apparently, a musical comedy. I have not seen it; it’s not my sort of thing. (In fact, since starting to write this post, it has been shown on television. I watched for about a minute before I gave up. It was certainly not my sort of thing.)

But the title of the film does beg the question, ‘If so, then why?’ It is not enough to dismiss the title as outdated or misogynous. Indeed, it transpires that the film was based on a comic novel of the same name by Anita Loos, published in 1925. This was followed up, in 1927, by But Gentlemen Marry Brunettes, which was also made into a film called, simply, Gentlemen Marry Brunettes—which was also made into a film. (Maybe I’ll give them a read.)

Furthermore, there are other questions that are being begged:
    Do ALL gentlemen prefer blondes?
    Do women prefer to be blonde or brunette?
    When choosing to colour one’s hair, do more brunettes prefer to become blonde than vice versa?
    Here, one must take into account whether it is easier to darken light hair or lighten dark hair, and what is implied should the preference be in favour of the more difficult of the two.

There may—or may not—be data out there to answer these questions. Perhaps companies selling hair dyes know. But I am not setting out to come to any conclusion on the matter. I am wanting to just ask questions—as is my wont.

In the past, I have come across the idea that those with naturally blonde hair—and a fairer overall complexion—are those who are less able to disguise certain underlying health conditions such as tuberculosis or other respiratory ailments. Poor respiratory physiology often presents as a bluish paleness. Unable to disguise such ailments, blondes are ‘preferred’ to those with darker hair or complexions whose respiratory ailments do not show up so obviously.

Lips, in particular, may take on a bluish tinge. This can now be disguised with lipstick—oddly coloured varieties notwithstanding. This answers the naive-sounding—but nevertheless begged—question, ‘Why redden already red lips?’ Most lipsticks are on the general theme of red.

Addendum
Having begun to write this post, I’ve now come across a hair colour called ‘bronde’! Obviously, a portmanteau of brown and blonde. At first, I didn’t believe that it really was a word, but it can be found in dictionaries. One internet description says that it is 'a blended hair colour that fuses blonde and brown tones, creating a dimensional, natural-looking shade that is neither fully blonde nor fully brown’ (before becoming even more effusive).

(Apparently, the word was first used about 15 years ago, and—as if I didn’t know already—I am decidedly behind the times.)