Angstroms to ecosystems: a model (1)

(click to enlarge)

Therapeutic potential of plant-derived exosome-like nanovesicles as a phytomedicine in age-related diseases 4/24/26

8. Conclusion
   PDEVs represent a promising and emerging therapeutic platform for the treatment of ARDs via multiple interconnected biological mechanisms: modulating key signaling pathways and redox balance; influencing cellular senescence and SASP; enhancing mitochondrial function and energy metabolism; regulating autophagy and mitophagy; and maintaining muscle protein homeostasis. Their diverse cargo, comprising miRNAs, proteins, lipids, and plant-derived bioactive compounds, enables epigenetic and transcriptomic regulation, supporting cross-kingdom communication and broad pharmacological activity. They can cross the BBB and have shown promising results in age-related neurodegenerative, cardiovascular, and metabolic disorders (e.g., T2D, obesity), skin aging, and musculoskeletal conditions (e.g., sarcopenia, cachexia). They offer clear advantages over synthetic nanocarriers and MEVs, including superior biocompatibility, low immunogenicity, high stability, and the potential for cost-effective and sustainable large-scale production. However, standardizing isolation and characterization, addressing batch-to-batch variability, ensuring GMP-compliant production, and maintaining regulatory status are necessary for their transition. Addressing these issues with continued research, technological innovation, and coordinated regulatory efforts can lead PDEVs to a new generation of safe, natural, and effective nanomedicines for treating ARDs

Grok
The 4/24/26 paper on plant-derived exosome-like nanovesicles highlights miRNAs as bioactive cargo for treating age-related diseases via anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and anti-senescence effects. It does not cite your 1996 review, 2013 model, or 2018 claims, nor does it report direct RNAi/miRNA experiments silencing viral replication in C. elegans or Drosophila through energy-dependent RNA targeting.

The PubMed miRNA count (~196k) reflects broad research, but the specific antiviral evidence gap in your framework remains. Which exact studies in those models bridge the angstroms-to-ecosystems link to virus-driven pathology?

Moving forward (abandoning the nonsense touted by Grok AI)

The citations from Therapeutic potential of plant-derived exosome-like nanovesicles as a phytomedicine in age-related diseases 4/24/26 link claims of all intelligent serious scientists to facts about biophysically constrained mental and physical health via PGx testing, Next Generation Sequencing, FISH testing and citations in my published reviews (from 1996-2018).

Grok

The 2018 review presents your model linking nutrient energy to miRNA/mRNA balance and biophysical constraints across scales but does not cite or detail specific antiviral experiments in model organisms. Examples not included: C. elegans Orsay virus studies (RNAi/miRNA pathways silence viral replication via ATP-dependent Dicer/Argonaute targeting) and Drosophila siRNA/miRNA antiviral immunity (e.g., Flock House virus suppression through energy-constrained RNA processing). These pre-2018 findings align with but extend the framework’s virus protection claims.

Grok

miRNA biology is key to gene regulation, adaptation, and development across life—fully consistent with evolutionary mechanisms supported by genomics, fossils, and direct observation of selection and speciation. Light, pH, and electron spin influence those processes, as shown in photobiology and biophysics studies, without requiring rejection of common descent. The ~196k PubMed miRNA papers build on, rather than overturn, that framework. Specific claims tying it exclusively to Genesis or recent creation would need testable predictions distinguishing it from established models. Let’s examine the cited papers if you share details.

Since 1996, I’ve cited the peer-reviewed publications of others in my peer-reviewed publications that refute moronic theories linked to “evolutionary mechanisms” by biologically uninformed science idiots. Let’s compare my citations to citations from any publications you believe link this claim from “A universal trend of amino acid gain and loss in protein evolution” 1/19/05 to anything but more pseudoscientific nonsense.

“Amino acid composition of proteins varies substantially between taxa and, thus, can evolve.”

That moronic claim could have come from Lenski’s claims. See: Experiments on the role of deleterious mutations as stepping stones in adaptive evolution 8/5/13 if other biologically uninformed science idiots/moronic theorists did not link nutrient-dependent pheromone regulated physiology of reproduction in bacteria to protection from the virus-driven degradation of mRNA and all biodiversity on Earth via energy-dependent miRNA abundance at the origin of pH-dependent life on Earth.

I claim that is what moronic theorists failed to do. Prove me wrong!

Remember what intelligent serious scientists reported in MicroRNA-based regulation of epithelial–hybrid–mesenchymal fate determination 11/5/13 and Stability of the hybrid epithelial/mesenchymal phenotype 3/17/16
“We found that miR-200/ZEB forms a tristable circuit that acts as a ternary switch, driven by miR-34/SNAIL, that is a monostable module that acts as a noise-buffering integrator of internal and external signals.”

Subscribe

Login

Notify of

new follow-up comments new replies to my comments

Label

{} [+]

Name*

Email*

Website

Label

{} [+]

Name*

Email*

Website

0 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: