Wholesale biochemical re-engineering - Not too far off now

[Izawwlgood]

Izawlgood, I rather like it when the bacteria devote all their resources to making a protein, because that means it's the simplest way to do it in the sense that there are no extra bits. Also, whereas we know exactly what happens between pressing the H key and making an H character appear where your cursor is, Ulc just explained that there's a lot we don't know about protein folding.

What extra bits? My computer is running all kinds of extraneous things. Similiarly, just like we know a lot about what happens between pressing the H key and making a character appear where the cursor is, we know a lot about how protein folding works. Your notion of 'simpler' is predicated on ignorance of the system you're criticizing. If you asked a specific question, instead of insisted that it was too muddied, we'd be able to progress in this conversation.

Look, you're not a biologist, and I'm not a computer scientist. Take it from me, and from other people in this thread, that having bacteria express a protein is the simplest way we can do it. The only way to make it more 'simple' is to formulate a protein a single amino acid at a time, and then wave our magic wands over the tube and hope that the protein automatically folds properly (i.e., doesn't require any extra machinery to do so). Not surprisingly, this is a strikingly less effective way of doing it than simply having the already extant factories that are bacteria do it for us.

[sourmìlk]

I get that it's the simplest way we can do it. And that's fine, we should do it as simply as we can. It's just that the simplest way we can do it is not as simple as I'd like it to be, that's all.

Also, I don't think our knowledge of H-key-pressing and protein folding are comparable, seeing as we invented the mechanism by which H keys are pressed and appear on screen, and we don't even entirely understand entirely how proteins fold.

[Izawwlgood]

I get that it's the simplest way we can do it. And that's fine, we should do it as simply as we can. It's just that the simplest way we can do it is not as simple as I'd like it to be, that's all.

Also, I don't think our knowledge of H-key-pressing and protein folding are comparable, seeing as we invented the mechanism by which H keys are pressed and appear on screen, and we don't even entirely understand entirely how proteins fold.

But we understand a great deal about ribosomes, and how they produce amino acid chains from mRNA. Not everything, but a great deal. Conversely, I'm sure there's some quantum mechanical detail we don't know about electron flow or matter composition that renders circuit boards, on a specific enough scale, a virtual black box of H key to H character on a screen producing wizardry.

The point I'm trying to make to you now is that you're looking at a level of organization YOU don't understand, and wanting to make it 'simpler', and by 'simpler', you actually mean 'reduced to terms I can understand'.

As to the second thing you've mentioned, just because we have a more limited understanding of protein folding dynamics doesn't mean that the process of using bacteria to produce proteins is 'messy'. It just means there are aspects of it we don't have rock solid models for. Incidentally, models that are potentially unnecessary for some applications; if I feed DNA to a bacteria, and induce it to produce a protein, and then do science to that protein to ensure that it is folded properly, and LO! it *IS* folded properly, and functions as the protein normally should, then why should I make the process 'simpler'?

The case in point is insulin. We used to extract it from pigs and cattle. Now we just get bacteria to make actual human insulin. It has the same primary, secondary, and tertiary sequence as human insulin, and can be used by humans as actual human insulin. What part of this process needs to change?

[sourmìlk]

Maybe our knowledge of the H key thing and protein folding is more comparable than I understood from Ulc's post.

Also, what I'd like to change about that process (nothing needs to change about it) is I'd like to get rid of our reliance on bacteria to do these things. It would be nicer if we could synthesize proteins without the aid of bacteria. That would involve fewer moving parts. If that's not possible then so be it, bacteria are the simplest theoretical way to synthesize proteins.

[Izawwlgood]

I should have been more clear then:
Using bacteria to do this, instead of using, I dunno, some really complicated and laborious automated chemical process, means you just have to add sugar, amino acids, and DNA to a bacteria culture, wait 4 hrs, then add an inducing agent, and VIOLA! You get biologically normal protein in abundance. Compared to mixing, say, peptide chains, one amino acid at a time, which involves alternating a chemical reaction in the presence of purified amino acid, is messy, and slow.

Don't think of bacteria in this case as, say, dust on your intake fan. Think of bacteria here as the compiler, and the DNA you feed it is the program you just wrote.

Bacteria make this process vastly more simple, because they do all the work for us quickly, stably, and consistently. For example, Taq polymerase has a fidelity of something like 1/100,000 base pairs being incorrect, and a speed of between 500-1000 basepairs per minute of elongation time. Try replicating DNA with an abiotic process that approaches that level of speed and accuracy. The thing to remember sourmilk is that biology has been doing this for a very, very long time.

[sourmìlk]

I know it has been, and I wouldn't doubt for a moment that you're doing it in the best way that you practically can.

Also, bacteria may do the work for us making it simpler from our perspective, but the system is more complicated, and thus has more points of failure.

[Ulc]

Ulc, why can we not solve the Schrodinger equation for each particle? Is it just too much computation with all the atoms in a protein?

In short, yes.

But that yes doesn't really carry the weight it's meant to here, because it's more along the likes of "fuck yes, and it's never, ever gonna happen, no matter how much our computing power advances". I think the current record is to accurately solve the Schrödinger equation with seven hydrogen atoms interacting* - and that required significant run time on a super computer. A protein is usually several thousand hydrogen atoms, all interacting with other, the medium the protein is dissolved in and many reasonably large atoms.

And chemical protein synthesis is actually a thing, it's done quite regularly. It's also really, really expensive, liable to produce mis folded proteins, hard to separate the incorrectly synthesized protein from the correctly synthesized and slow and it's almost categorically impossible to duplicate the degree of L-amino acid purity that biological systems archieve - meaning that there is D-amino acid impurities, which for a lack of better phrase is bad news.

Believe me on this, chemical protein synthesis is much, much more difficult and complicated than hi-jacking a E. coli. cell. The system for biological synthesis in proteins really is as simple as it can be if you want all three of the following: fast, efficient, correct extremely near to 100% of the time. There flat out isn't a way to reduce the complexity of the system without significantly letting go of one of those three goals.

Even so, it is a useful process to have, the protein I work with as an example is notoriously hard to work with in E. coli, due to the whole "exceedingly toxic to the organism"

*IanaP, so going on memory of what friends working with quantum physics tells me.

[Izawwlgood]

Also, bacteria may do the work for us making it simpler from our perspective, but the system is more complicated, and thus has more points of failure

You keep insisting on this. Tell me why you think a system that has ~3.5Bn years of streamlining itself has 'more points of failure' than crudely trying to recreate it does? To go back to the computer analogy, this is like me insisting that if I wanted to write an email to my downstairs neighbor, that a microprocessor has more points of failure than writing down letters on index cards and having someone run it downstairs character by character, and then arranging the whole thing into a message, would be somehow 'more simple' than just typing the email into gmail and hitting send. Because hey, who knows what's happening in a computer, or in an email delivery protocol! It could be ANYTHING.

In fact, to continue with this analogy, insisting that having bacteria produce a protein is unreliable and should be simplified is as ridiculous as insisting that my post, when I hit submit, might pop up as the Declaration of Independence written in Swahili.

[sourmìlk]

I didn't say that it was unreliable, just that there were more points of failure. Anyways, the bacteria actually has to stay alive to produce proteins, and that involves millions of chemical reactions that have nothing to do with the protein synthesis, right? But synthesizing a protein involves only systems that produce the protein, discarding those chemical reactions. Also, getting a human to remember and write something is substantially more complicated than typing it into a computer. We know how computers work, and it's relatively simple. Humans, mind you, have millions of unique chemical reactions going on between proteins substantially more complicated than silicon doped in boron.

[Izawwlgood]

I didn't say that it was unreliable, just that there were more points of failure.

And I'm telling you this assumption is predicated on ignorance of the system you are critiquing and ignorance of the system you are proposing.

[sourmìlk]

Protein synthesis involves millions of chemical reactions having nothing to do with producing the protein?

[jseah]

I won't pretend to know too much about how antibodies are made, since my only practical knowledge (I know the theory) of them is "magic liquid you use for western blots".

Still, Abs are produced not in bacteria. And doing it in bacteria would be nice. Can we say 30 mg per litre?

Maybe if you put an export sequence in front of it.

I get that it's the simplest way we can do it. And that's fine, we should do it as simply as we can. It's just that the simplest way we can do it is not as simple as I'd like it to be, that's all.

There is this thing called in vitro translation. It reads RNA and makes proteins from it. How? Add ribosomes, ATP/GTP, tRNA-amino acids (multiple types).
Doesn't work all that well.

Optimize it? Sure, we could. But you'd have to replace the ribosomes and RNA eventually. tRNA-amino acids are also expensive (you have to make or purify them).
In vitro transcription (DNA -> RNA) is also possible, but you add helicase, RNA polymerase, the four RNA nucleosides. You could make all those proteins with your in vitro translation; and in vitro transcription can make tRNA and rRNA for ribosomes. (the nucleosides aren't that expensive, but they're not cheap either, same with amino acids)

If it's a membrane protein? Have fun using micelles and membrane transporters. Plus a number of chaperones to make the ribosomes work with them.

You could recycle the ATP/GTP by having various proteins do electron transport and metabolism. Rebuild and repair broken DNA and RNA if you will. All of those have their own proteins and your in vitro translation could make them all.

Oh hey, did we just make a proto-bacteria?


You see, bacteria used for the task of protein synthesis are production. power plant, raw chemical synthesis and self-maintenance. All in one package. Apart from the self-replication, you are going to need everything to produce large quantities of your protein at low cost.

They literally do nothing else. The computer compiling code analogy can be extended. In this case, bacterial cells are the compiler, computer, power lines and computer repair shop. You feed them electricity, they spit out code.

EDIT:
If you apply selection to them (say they make an antibody against some toxin), they are also trillions of monkeys hammering away to produce Hamlet.

[sourmìlk]

I get that it's easier to use bacteria. It's just that harder != more complicated. Writing a program is complicated, but it's nowhere near as difficult as benchpressing a car.

[Izawwlgood]

Protein synthesis involves millions of chemical reactions having nothing to do with producing the protein?

The above poster outlined this fairly decently. But yes, abiotic protein synthesis involves a lot of extraneous chemistry and moving parts to attempt to do what a single bacteria culture can do quicker, cheaper, cleaner, and more reliably. Ulc gave you examples of how this works. The very issue of chirality is something I had forgotten about in the context of artificial protein synthesis, and offhand virtually invalidates the technique as a method for producing bulk protein. When you have to throw out at least 50% of your final product, which you must separate via an additional step which further reduces your efficiency, yes, abiotic protein synthesis is grossly messier, and liable to break down at one of the many likely to fail steps, than a system that has been in place for 3.5Bn years.

Using bacteria isn't just easier, it's simpler than making it abiotically, and it's more reliable. It's the difference between handing someone a jack and a wrench to replace a tire on their car, and trying to rebuild the car from crude oil and raw iron.

I mean, frankly sourmilk, I have to wonder why you think there's a more effective way of doing it; do you think vaccine or insulin production is something that is done via a sloppy and less effective method because the pharmaceutical industry likes flushing profits down the toilet?

[sourmìlk]

I didn't say there was a more effective way to do it. I just think that it's not as simple as it could theoretically be, whether or not creating a simpler process is practically possible. I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying.

[jseah]

Oh well, as simple as it theoretically could be.

There's this thing called the Minimal Cell Project. Trying to work out what is the absolute minimum that bacteria can survive on. And survival is enough to make bacteria produce proteins you want.

That is about as simple as it can get. Sure, bacteria are nothing like Just-In-Time manufacturing (although some biochemical synthesis they do does look a bit that way), but they are tiny factories that produce in parallel. Essentially, all steps of a classical production chain, compressed into one thing. Not anything more than that.

And you should know that absolute minimum complexity might not be the most efficient. A factory does not strictly need a toilet to operate. But a toilet would make it more efficient.

[Ulc]

I didn't say that it was unreliable, just that there were more points of failure. Anyways, the bacteria actually has to stay alive to produce proteins, and that involves millions of chemical reactions that have nothing to do with the protein synthesis, right? But synthesizing a protein involves only systems that produce the protein, discarding those chemical reactions.

Except, you can't actually make just the system that produces just the protein, without also making a way to maintain a incredible complicated system and the only way to actually maintain it in working order, is to use a balance of positive and negative feedback reactions. Which is basically what a cell is.

It's important to keep the mission goal in mind, a workable protein synthesis system has have the following qualities

1) Affordable.
2) Extremely high accuracy - it doesn't make miss folded, miss synthesized or otherwise defective protein
3) High output per time unit.

If we want to do all three of those, the system we end up designing to maintain our production system is going to be, at the very least, as complicated as a bacterial cell - likely a lot more than that. You keep throwing the terms "simple" and "complicated" around like you know what they mean, but the reality is that protein synthesis as done by biological system is amazingly simple and elegant for such a high accuracy - and yes, it comes with a maintenance system wrapped in a phosphor-lipid bilayer.

The current method we use for protein synthesis is so extremely fraught with points of failure that I'm continuously amazed that it works at all. So many things can (and I'm pretty sure, do) go wrong that it's only really useful for one thing: producing proteins sufficiently toxic that they can't be produced in biological organisms

[sourmìlk]

Okay, well if a bacteria is the simplest theoretically possible means of synthesizing proteins then so be it.

[Izawwlgood]

I'm not sure why you're persisting that there's a feasible way of doing this artificially. You're basically calling for a system that is the equivalent of a magic organizer of amino acids and has no extraneous functionality aside from magically organizing and hydrolyzing amino acids into a peptide.

We're telling you, what's what bacteria are doing. Practically, there is no way to simplify or streamline this procedure that we know of, short of creating nanobots to do the job of bacteria. Which would basically be creating nanobots to do what bacteria already do.

[Ulc]

Okay, well if a bacteria is the simplest theoretically possible means of synthesizing proteins then so be it.

To be fair, we don't actually know if it is

First of all, "simplest" is not rigidly defined - A 10 step process that work under most conditions is probably simpler than a 8 step process that requires extremely carefully controlled conditions to work.
Secondly, we don't actually know what it must be capable of doing - that depends entirely on how proteins react, which we can't really figure out at the moment. It's the old "garbage in, garbage out" dragon rearing it's head again

Though we can safely say that any procedure capable of matching biological synthesis in regards to output and quality, will be extremely complex as well.

[Izawwlgood]

To potentially get back on track;
Again, how will this innovation revolutionize the protein engineering field?

[ahammel]

To potentially get back on track;
Again, how will this innovation revolutionize the protein engineering field?

I suppose now, once we actually figure out how to engineer a protein to perform an arbitrary function, we can glycosylate it as well.

Yay?

[Izawwlgood]

To potentially get back on track;
Again, how will this innovation revolutionize the protein engineering field?

I suppose now, once we actually figure out how to engineer a protein to perform an arbitrary function, we can glycosylate it as well.

Yay?

Heh, this technology will make our faster than light traveling space ships 15% faster!

[sourmìlk]

short of creating nanobots to do the job of bacteria. Which would basically be creating nanobots to do what bacteria already do.

From a philosophical standpoint I'd actually prefer this. Also from a "nanobots are friggin' awesome" standpoint.

[Izawwlgood]

I think this underlines your problem then; why do you think nanobots are going to have 'less points of failure' than a bacteria?

[sourmìlk]

If I said 'less', that's wrong. It's fewer. Also, there aren't mechanisms there that exist for purposes other than producing proteins.

[lutzj]

Also, there aren't mechanisms there that exist for purposes other than producing proteins.

That would just displace complexity, it wouldn't remove it.

[Izawwlgood]

If I said 'less', that's wrong. It's fewer. Also, there aren't mechanisms there that exist for purposes other than producing proteins.

What lulzj said, also, how the fuck do you know? How do you know nanobots won't require power regulation, or self repair regulation, or any other kinds of 'non protein synthesis production' components? You're taking what is a fabricated and unrealistic assumption about a fairy tale. It's highly illogical of you. Again, you're basically asserting that while sure, a horse and carriage can transport people and stuff, what we really need is some kind of platform with wheels and a pure motive force generator that doesn't require any fuel or poop, because engines are better then horses. Except not an engine, because engines have things like coolant intake and heat dissipators, so, really what we need, is a platform with wheels and a force vector.

[qetzal]

@sourmilk,

The number of failure points is irrelevant. What matters is the overall likelihood of failure. It's probably fair to say that bacteria have more possible failure modes, but the chances of failure are much, MUCH lower than any other alternative. That's because bacteria have been 'optimized' over several billion years to make proteins (which they need to survive and reproduce), and to not fail. (The ones that failed too often are now extinct.)

Also, consider this. If you needed a huge amount of processing power, which would you prefer - making a few billion conventional computers from scratch, or starting with one computer that was self-replicating, giving it a bunch of simple raw materials, and letting it make a billion copies of itself? Can you not see that the latter approach is in some ways much simpler than the former?

Others have already mentioned the other alternatives for making proteins. We can string amino acids together via chemical synthesis, but we can't do it efficiently enough to make full-sized proteins. That process certainly has fewer failure points, but the overall likelihood of failure is MUCH higher. Alternately, we can do something called "cell-free translation." But that basically involves growing a bunch of cells, breaking them open, recovering the protein synthetic machinery (as a crude mixture), and using it in a test tube. That way still requires growing the cells that provide the protein synthetic machinery, and it also has a much higher failure frequency.

Bottom line: making proteins in living cells is by far the simplest option within our current capabilities, and will remain so for the forseeable future. Bacteria are the simplest, then yeast, then cultured mammalian cells.

The biggest problem with making proteins in bacteria is that most proteins made in mammalian cells have certain types of sugars added onto them at certain points (glycosylation). Bacteria can't do that the same way mammalian cells do. Proteins that don't have the right sugars added to them sometimes don't work properly. Sometimes they're more likely to be recognized as foreign by the immune system, which can create problems. This work is a step towards getting bacteria to make proteins that are more comparable to proteins made in mammalian cells. That's good, because it's easier and cheaper to make proteins in bacteria than in mammalian cells.

[sourmìlk]

If I said 'less', that's wrong. It's fewer. Also, there aren't mechanisms there that exist for purposes other than producing proteins.

What lulzj said, also, how the fuck do you know? How do you know nanobots won't require power regulation, or self repair regulation, or any other kinds of 'non protein synthesis production' components? You're taking what is a fabricated and unrealistic assumption about a fairy tale. It's highly illogical of you. Again, you're basically asserting that while sure, a horse and carriage can transport people and stuff, what we really need is some kind of platform with wheels and a pure motive force generator that doesn't require any fuel or poop, because engines are better then horses. Except not an engine, because engines have things like coolant intake and heat dissipators, so, really what we need, is a platform with wheels and a force vector.

But all those things in the nanobots serve the purpose of making a protein. Bacteria have processes unrelated to making proteins. All I'm saying is that I don't like the extra processes. I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not saying there's definitely a more efficient means to synthesize proteins, I'm not saying this isn't the simplest method we have, and I'm not saying that it doesn't work damn well. I'd just like something that exists for the sole purpose of creating proteins so that we wouldn't have to worry about its other functions.

[qetzal]

Why do those extra functions worry you?

[elasto]

But all those things in the nanobots serve the purpose of making a protein. Bacteria have processes unrelated to making proteins. All I'm saying is that I don't like the extra processes.

Can you name what some of those processes are, and can you explain why they wouldn't be useful in any other method of protein manufacturing?

eg. Bacteria reproduce themselves, but that's a positive not a negative, because it simplifies the overall process: Means it's very easy to ramp production up or transfer manufacturing capacity from one facility to another.
Bacteria also repair themselves, but that's a positive not a negative too, because all manufacturing lines need repair and if the bacteria repair themselves then we don't have to.

If we created nanobots to do the same job we'd want them to have these extra capabilities too because it would make our lives much simpler.

So, can you name some processes bacteria have that aren't useful for our purposes?

[Izawwlgood]

All I'm saying is that I don't like the extra processes.

And I'm telling you all these notions you have of eliminating 'extra processes' are spherical cow approximations at best. Your idea of nanobots that assemble amino acids into proteins; can you think of a robot that does have 'extra processes'? Look at your computer right now, and tell me there are zero extra processes going on. That routine that checks wi-fi in the area; yeah, that has nothing to do with converting keyboard strokes into images on a screen.

[gmalivuk]

Nor, for that matter, does the routine that displays keyboard strokes have much to do with actual computations. It, along with everything else about the display, is just bulky extra processes to make it easier for meatbags to use computers.

[sourmìlk]

An interface is certainly necessary for a computer to serve its purpose. Bacterial reproduction is not necessary (or not theoretically necessary, as far as I know) to synthesize proteins, so although it's sort of convenient, it creates a large structure that doesn't actually do anything to synthesize proteins.

And I'm telling you all these notions you have of eliminating 'extra processes' are spherical cow approximations at best.

Basically, yeah. I was sort of hoping that maybe there could be a simpler way to synthesize proteins that didn't involve processes that don't contribute to synthesizing proteins.

[Izawwlgood]

But like I keep trying to explain to you sourmilk, your 'doesn't have processes that don't involve producing proteins' includes processes like 'producing enzymes that allow the bacteria to produce proteins' or 'producing enzymes that store energy' or 'repairing damage to this vacuole where proteins are made' or 'repairing DNA damage so cell can continue producing proteins'.

Right now, when I'm writing this post, my heart is beating. My liver is detoxifying the alcohol in my blood, and a giant burrito is being ground up in my stomach. None of these things have to do with trying to convey ideas to you, yet ideas would not be conveyed if these things did not happen. Similarly, you cannot produce a system that makes proteins without any 'extraneous processes'. Or rather, producing a system that simply 'makes protein' would effectively be recreating a bacteria.

[sourmìlk]

Actually, I kind of think humans are also probably more complicated than the simplest possible mechanism to store, execute, and express human thought.

Those aren't the processes I'm talking about. All of those processes are totally related to the manufacture of proteins. I'm talking about the ones involved in, for example, the bacterial life cycle, that have nothing to do with manufacturing proteins. I kind of wish there were a way to exclude those so that they didn't need to be worried about and so that they couldn't fail, thus screwing everything up.

[CorruptUser]

An interface is certainly necessary for a computer to serve its purpose. Bacterial reproduction is not necessary (or not theoretically necessary, as far as I know) to synthesize proteins, so although it's sort of convenient, it creates a large structure that doesn't actually do anything to synthesize proteins.

Sort of convenient? That's an understatement. Getting the creation of the "right" strain of bacteria involves a lot of chance even if you know exactly what you want, and you have to test to see if you got it right by killing a few of the bacteria in the strain.

It's much safer to just let the poor buggers reproduce; forcing the mutations is really no more dangerous than living in the real world, where the bacteria mutate far more frequently than all the biologists in the world could force them to.

Actually, I kind of think humans are also probably more complicated than the simplest possible mechanism to store, execute, and express human thought.

Those aren't the processes I'm talking about. All of those processes are totally related to the manufacture of proteins. I'm talking about the ones involved in, for example, the bacterial life cycle, that have nothing to do with manufacturing proteins. I kind of wish there were a way to exclude those so that they didn't need to be worried about and so that they couldn't fail, thus screwing everything up.

You just want to think that. The number of neurons in the brain is finite at around 100 billion, and even if each one stores a byte of information, that's only 100 terabytes. And no, they don't all fire at once.

[Izawwlgood]

I'm talking about the ones involved in, for example, the bacterial life cycle, that have nothing to do with manufacturing proteins.

For starters, I already told you that typically you induce bacteria to produce the protein of interest. So when you chemically treat them, they aren't actually doing much dividing or such.

But for seconds, tell me why these extra processes bother you? My laptop is currently telling me there are 6 wi-fi connections it can detect; that doesn't detract from its ability to keep this Firefox window open. Why do you care if a bacteria is, in addition to synthesizing the protein you want it to, also repairing some DNA damage, or synthesizing cholesterol for insertion into the plasma membrane, or activating a signal cascade in response to osmotic pressure? None of these things are directly impacting the protein synthesis you care about. And if they were, you'd simply use a bacterial strain that doesn't do them.

[sourmìlk]

I'm talking about the ones involved in, for example, the bacterial life cycle, that have nothing to do with manufacturing proteins.

For starters, I already told you that typically you induce bacteria to produce the protein of interest. So when you chemically treat them, they aren't actually doing much dividing or such.

Right, and I said that I'm rather okay with that. There are no extra parts there, it's reliable, and it does the job efficiently.

But for seconds, tell me why these extra processes bother you? My laptop is currently telling me there are 6 wi-fi connections it can detect; that doesn't detract from its ability to keep this Firefox window open. Why do you care if a bacteria is, in addition to synthesizing the protein you want it to, also repairing some DNA damage, or synthesizing cholesterol for insertion into the plasma membrane, or activating a signal cascade in response to osmotic pressure? None of these things are directly impacting the protein synthesis you care about. And if they were, you'd simply use a bacterial strain that doesn't do them.

Finding wi-fi connections of part of the purpose of your laptop. Your laptop doesn't have extra parts that do things that you don't care about. And if it is engaged in processes you don't care about, you should see if you can get rid of those processes. All parts of your computer act to serve its function of absorbing data, computing it, and outputting it as specified by the hardware designers, programmers, and users. There isn't a part of the computer that, for example, creates duplicates of itself. If there were, I'd want that removed because it's just another part of the computer that can break.