Biology vs biochemistry

[physicsuser]

What is the difference between biology and biochemistry?

 

[neurocomp2003]

um biology studies stuff like molecular biology, cell biology, plants, ecology, evolution(population dynamics), math, genetics, human biology

biochemistry is sometimes a subfield of biology depending on where you look usually just
lkooking at biology at the chemistry level...macromolecules,drugs,and most things similar to biology just using more chemistry.

 

[Samanthakrjx]

biology=biochemistry +...

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

biology=biochemistry +...

I completely disagree with this.

Biochemistry is not biology. It is chemistry. And furthermore, biochemistry is not a subset of biology.

Thats like saying calculus is a subset of physics. While one may have overlapping areas with the other, they are completely different areas of study. Biologists and biochemists don't even speak the same language, for Pete's sake!

So tell me then, Samantha: what is the difference between biochemistry and molecular biology?

 

[physicsuser]

I completely disagree with this.

Biochemistry is not biology. It is chemistry. And furthermore, biochemistry is not a subset of biology.

Thats like saying calculus is a subset of physics. While one may have overlapping areas with the other, they are completely different areas of study. Biologists and biochemists don't even speak the same language, for Pete's sake!

So tell me then, Samantha: what is the difference between biochemistry and molecular biology?

Uhm that is what I want to know... what is biochemistry and what is biology.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Uhm that is what I want to know... what is biochemistry and what is biology.

physicsuser, i was replying to samanthakrjx's post.

biochemistry is the branch of chemistry dealing with the both the chemical rxns and forces (i.e. binding) that occur in biological systems. biochemists ask questions like "what is the rate of reaction for this enzyme? what is the Km, or Vmax?". they deal with biological phenomena, like protein pathways, nucleic acids, etc. but from the perspective of chemistry. thermodynamics and organic chemistry play a heavy role for them, which makes them chemists and not biologists.

biology is a much broader area of science, and does NOT include biochemistry (contrary to samantha's post). it does, however, include molecular biology, cell biology, genetics, population biology, zoology, i can go on and on here.

why don't you do everyone a favor and just check wikipedia.

 

[Almeisan]

I think biochemistry is part of biology.

Biology is the science of life, so the chemistry happening in living things is part of biology also. Molecular biology isn't chemistry or physics. Its biology with chemistry, physics and some math too. Same with biochemistry.

The chemistry of life is obviously both chemistry and biology.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

I think biochemistry is part of biology.

It isn't.

If you go to a university, biochemists belong to the chemistry department, not the biology department. They speak a different language, they do different research.

We can argue whether you think biochemistry
should be considered a part of biology, but it isn't.

Is biophysics also biology? No, it is a branch of physics. If you go to a meeting you will find the biophysicists hanging out with physicists. If you read their papers, they are talking the language of physics, not biology, etc...

 

[selfAdjoint]

It isn't.

If you go to a university, biochemists belong to the chemistry department, not the biology department. They speak a different language, they do different research.

We can argue whether you think biochemistry
should be considered a part of biology, but it isn't.

Is biophysics also biology? No, it is a branch of physics. If you go to a meeting you will find the biophysicists hanging out with physicists. If you read their papers, they are talking the language of physics, not biology, etc...

On the other hand molecular biology IS a part of biology!

 

[kalladin]

I guess to prevent people like quetzalcoatl9 from going over the top and blowing their caps off... most universities now have departments for Biochemistry and Biophysics that are separate, but immensely affiliated with the departments for chemistry and biology for the first, and physics and biology for the second.

 

[Monique]

I have studied biochemistry at college, this was part of the chemistry department (I studied biology & medicine at the biology department in the first year, but decided I rather wanted to do the biotech side of things and not the medical diagnostics part that was emphasized). There really is no difference, I missed pathology courses and medical diagnostics courses and did mass spectrometry and hplc courses instead: a bit more physical.

Then I moved on to study medical biochemistry part of the biomedical sciences program, which is part of the universities' biology department.

I did some work at a biochemistry department; they do study enzyme rates and what proteins inhibit enzymes, but that is not where the science stops. Perhaps pure biochemistry should be considered a chemical science, strictly speaking it is the chemistry of biological molecules.. that does not mean that a biochemistry department is not involved with immunology/ protein modeling/ molecular biology/ genetics etc.

 

[neurocomp2003]

it does depend on teh school, most cross disciplines are affiliated with both departments though the coordinator my be in one..

 

[Monique]

Ok, here is my two-year course summary required for a college biochem degree (there are a bunch of other courses like employment & environmental care, but I didn't include those):

Chemical calculations
Electrochemistry
Physical chemistry: interface/colloidal
Organic chemistry
Liquid separation methods
Spectroscopy UV-VIS
Theoretical applied statistics
General equilibria theory
Inorganic chemistry
Sample preparation theory
Radioactivity
Spectroscopy: NMR, IR, MS
Chemical text processing informatics
Database informatics
Labcourse electrochemistry
Labcourse equilibria
Labcourse organic chemistry
Labcourse separation methods
Analytical biochemistry
Biochemistry topics
Biochemistry metabolism
Biochemistry applied genetics
Cellbiology
Biochemistry enzymes
Physiology, anatomy, pathology: immunology
Genetic manipulation
Immunochemistry
In vitro cultivation
Theoretical microbiology
Physiology for biochemists
Labcourse Cell- and tissue culture
Labcourse Immunochemistry
Labcourse analytical biochemistry
Labcourse microbiology
Labcourse molecular biology
Biochemistry essay

 

[iansmith]

I have studied biochemistry at college, this was part of the chemistry department (I studied biology & medicine at the biology department in the first year, but decided I rather wanted to do the biotech side of things and not the medical diagnostics part that was emphasized). There really is no difference, I missed pathology courses and medical diagnostics courses and did mass spectrometry and hplc courses instead: a bit more physical.

My friend would argue otherwise. She started biochem then switch to microbio. She said it was world apart and from my experience, there is difference between a biologist and a biochemist. It is all in the head of a person. My old supervisor was a biochemist and he said that bio and biochem are different.

Also, most biology do not view biochemist as biologist and most chemist do not view biochemist as chemist. That why some biochemist created molecular biology. If you look at the definition for molecular biology is quite similar to biochemistry. It only forces the biochemist to do a bit more biology.

Also the course you listed, monique, only a few would be in biology/microbiology and it is usually where biology meets chemistry.

Here my course load for a microbiology major (minus the research project, the seminars and the "write a review" course):
Comparative zoology (Lab)
Comparative plant science (Lab)
Ecology
Introduction to microbiology (Lab)
Cellular biology
Biochemistry + Lab section
Genetics (Lab)
Introduction to microbiology lab methodology
Statistical methods
Parasitology (Lab)
Microbial Ecology
Eukaryotics cells and viruses genetics & molecular biology
Bacterial pathogenesis (Lab)
Food microbiology (Lab)
Immunology
Bacterial Genetics (Lab)

Some elective class i took:
Veterinary & Medical Entomology
Animal Pathogenesis
Biological control of insect pest

My other electives were in computer science (1), economics (5) and ethics (1).

In my opinion, the biologist study the organism (and its environement) as a whole. The biochemist only study the chemical process of an organism.

 

[Monique]

Also the course you listed, monique, only a few would be in biology/microbiology and it is usually where biology meets chemistry.

I don't think so, see:

metabolism, applied genetics, cellbiology, physiology, anatomy, pathology: immunology, genetic manipulation, immunochemistry, in vitro cultivation, theoretical microbiology, physiology for biochemists, labcourse cell- and tissue culture, labcourse immunochemistry, labcourse analytical biochemistry, labcourse microbiology, labcourse molecular biology

the only courses missing are:
Comparative zoology (Lab)
Comparative plant science (Lab)
Ecology
Parasitology (Lab)
Microbial Ecology

and honesty I wouldn't miss those.

In my opinion, the biologist study the organism (and its environement) as a whole. The biochemist only study the chemical process of an organism.

In the traditional sense that is true, but biology now reaches inside the cell and how cells interact to form an organism (or disease).. that's what modern biology is about.

 

[Jikx]

I was always led to believe:

Molecular Biology = DNA, Genes
Biochemistry = Proteins.
Biology = Macro life processes

Which did hold in my university for the first 2 years. Then for some bizarre reason in third year, molecular bio was lumped in with biochem and mixed it with immunology, genetics, and epidemiology - and called it Biochemistry. hmmmm...

 

[selfAdjoint]

Nowadqays mol;ecular biology is deep into "proteomics" - gene/RNA/protein interaction, plus protein folding and dynamics.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

My friend would argue otherwise. She started biochem then switch to microbio. She said it was world apart and from my experience, there is difference between a biologist and a biochemist. It is all in the head of a person. My old supervisor was a biochemist and he said that bio and biochem are different.

Also, most biology do not view biochemist as biologist and most chemist do not view biochemist as chemist. That why some biochemist created molecular biology. If you look at the definition for molecular biology is quite similar to biochemistry. It only forces the biochemist to do a bit more biology.

i agree with this completely, you have put things well.

i have been involved in research (both as an undergraduate and graduate student) in an area of biochemistry that is somewhat close to biology, so i have seen first hand the differences that you are talking about.

someone who has not been in that position would have no idea how different the 2 fields really are, they approach problems completely differently. i agree that the gap has narrowed a little with molecular studies, but not to the point where i would say that they are the same, and
certainly not that one is subset of another, that is just silly..

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

I was always led to believe:

Molecular Biology = DNA, Genes
Biochemistry = Proteins.
Biology = Macro life processes

this is, in fact, close to the truth.

 

[Monique]

I was always led to believe:

Molecular Biology = DNA, Genes
Biochemistry = Proteins.
Biology = Macro life processes

You're right, I don't know what route the monarch butterfly travels to migrate from mexico to Canada.. so I am not a biologist in that ecology sense. I also don't know all the different species of pigeons, so I am not a biologist in that sense either.

There are so many new fields of biology now: genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, structural genomics, functional genomics, pharmacogenomics, toxicogenomics, chemical genomics or chemogenomics, epigenomics, transcriptomics, ribonomics, proteogenomics, reverse proteomics, reverse genomics -- just naming the different -omics fields :tongue2:

 

[iansmith]

There are so many new fields of biology now: genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, structural genomics, functional genomics, pharmacogenomics, toxicogenomics, chemical genomics or chemogenomics, epigenomics, transcriptomics, ribonomics, proteogenomics, reverse proteomics, reverse genomics -- just naming the different -omics fields :tongue2:

These are not fields in biology. These things are reductionist in their view. That is why the genomics era has not solve any problems and has several short coming.

These are tools to be used by people doing biology. A biologist could do proteonomics, transcriptomics and metabolomics in one project.

 

[Monique]

These are not fields in biology. These things are reductionist in their view. That is why the genomics era has not solve any problems and has several short coming.

These are tools to be used by people doing biology. A biologist could do proteonomics, transcriptomics and metabolomics in one project.

And a biologist can also do biochemistry, all these fields combined allow us to understand an organism.

And I'm not too sure about your comment that genomics has not solved any problems, genomics has been a revolution in biology and allows us to open many doors that were closed before (think for instance about comparing the mouse and human genome).

 

[iansmith]

And I'm not too sure about your comment that genomics has not solved any problems, genomics has been a revolution in biology and allows us to open many doors that were closed before (think for instance about comparing the mouse and human genome).

I would not called genomics a revolution for biology. How much did our understanding in biology increased due to genomics? We are basicly at the same point.

I am not saying there no good that came out of genomics but Venter et al. sold it as the "Holy grail of biology". The idea that we could understand more based on genomics is a reductionist idea that trully show that the person talking does not understand biology or is not a biologist.

 

[Monique]

I would not called genomics a revolution for biology. How much did our understanding in biology increased due to genomics? We are basicly at the same point.

it is a tool! There are so many applications that I can think of. Ofcourse there are many levels of information, of which the genome is only one; knowing the sequence tells you nothing about epigenetics for instance.

I've done a whole genome scan, knowing the sequence of the genome and what genes lie on a region of linkage or association tells me what candidate genes to look at. Knowing what orthologues there are can give me information on gene function or gives me the opportunity to make animal models.

I've heavily relied on the published genomes for my various research projects. There are still compilation errors that can greatly complicate your work. Doing a linkage study while your markers keep moving across the genome can be frustrating, or doing a PCR and finding out that a contig is not compiled properly.

How can we do whole genome expression studies without knowing the sequence of the genome. We can now predict whether a woman needs to undergo chemotherapy based on the genetic profile of her tumor! If that is not a biological revolution, then I don't know.

Or let's talk about shutting down genes by RNAi, how could we do that if we didn't know the sequences of all the genes. I'm thinking about setting up a research project to search for cancer drug targets using that technology. Without Venter and Lander this technology would not be possible.

 

[iansmith]

I've done a whole genome scan, knowing the sequence of the genome and what genes lie on a region of linkage or association tells me what candidate genes to look at. Knowing what orthologues there are can give me information on gene function or gives me the opportunity to make animal models.

that might be the only aplication that can only come from genomics. However, you example only applies to human research.

I did scan for sepecific homologues. However, I have to work with something people have done before. So to find homologue, I can also used universal primers if the genes has been sequenced in several species. There is of course limitation.

I've heavily relied on the published genomes for my various research projects. There are still compilation errors that can greatly complicate your work. Doing a linkage study while your markers keep moving across the genome can be frustrating, or doing a PCR and finding out that a contig is not compiled properly.

I only used whole genome sequence to point me in the right direction and make some prediction. However, I cannot rely on whole genome sequence. Most of the time the strain of bacteria I used is not published or not annotated. There sometimes significant difference between strains of bacteia and that lef me the "old-fashion" way to do identification. If it was such a revolution, would everyone relie heavely on whole genome data and would that data be reliable?

How can we do whole genome expression studies without knowing the sequence of the genome. We can now predict whether a woman needs to undergo chemotherapy based on the genetic profile of her tumor! If that is not a biological revolution, then I don't know.

People used to do proteomics studies. I found more paper on protein profiles prior to 1995 compare to the genomic era. I find it hilarious people a re"dicoverying" proteomes. Proteomics would be much more advance nowdays if the genomics would not take such a large place.

So you could do a protein profile of the cancers cells and find the proteins that are expressed only in cancer cells.

Or let's talk about shutting down genes by RNAi, how could we do that if we didn't know the sequences of all the genes. I'm thinking about setting up a research project to search for cancer drug targets using that technology. Without Venter and Lander this technology would not be possible.

You construct a cDNA library from cell grown in the desired conditions, clone it upstream of an inducible promoter, produce RNA (some will be sense, some will be antisense) and then screen the clones for the desired phenotype. Once you selected the desired clone, you sequence the cDNA clone.

 

[Monique]

People used to do proteomics studies. I found more paper on protein profiles prior to 1995 compare to the genomic era. I find it hilarious people a re"dicoverying" proteomes. Proteomics would be much more advance nowdays if the genomics would not take such a large place.

2d protein gels you mean? You know how much work it is to analyze those?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

2d protein gels you mean? You know how much work it is to analyze those?

fyi, there is a new technique called differential 2d gel electrophoresis that gets around some of the problems in analyzing 2d protein gels.

it makes use of staining the protein homogenate with a flurescent dye, and a standard with a different dye. a computer can then be used to normalize the entire gel based upon the standards so that different 2d gels can be compared! some are now automated with a robotic extractor that can cut out a band of interest and feed it into the MS, very cool.

this is also really nice for oncology because you can stain 2 different protein samples (say, one from a normal cell line and the other from a cancerous cell line) with different dyes and then compare the different levels between the two on the same gel! very nice for looking at global changes.

 

[quasi426]

Although people may say they are studying a certain field such as biology or molecular biology or whatever. When it comes down to it, biology is just biochemistry or chemistry. If someone is in disagreement, please give me a specific example in biology that has nothing to do with biochemistry. Just to let you see where I'm going. Someone might say the ability to see. Well that's due to proteins in the eye that undergo a conformational change when a photon transfers its energy. The conformational change leads to signals to the brain...all these things are biochemistry.

 

[Jikx]

Don't we have fields because simply because we can't reduce everything down to its essence? Imagine trying to do behavioral work on animals based purely on biochemisty. Or another step up, studying the sharemarket using biochem! Not quite there yet..


And you might as well go the whole way, all things can be explained by physics!

 

[Moonbear]

Although people may say they are studying a certain field such as biology or molecular biology or whatever. When it comes down to it, biology is just biochemistry or chemistry. If someone is in disagreement, please give me a specific example in biology that has nothing to do with biochemistry. Just to let you see where I'm going. Someone might say the ability to see. Well that's due to proteins in the eye that undergo a conformational change when a photon transfers its energy. The conformational change leads to signals to the brain...all these things are biochemistry.

But that's not the biochemist's approach.

Biochemistry is currently a field distinct from (though overlapping with) both biology and chemistry (hence the name). They focus far more on the chemistry side of things and far less on the functions (biology) of things. I used to have to explain to people when I was attempting a double major in biology and chemistry why I wasn't just majoring in biochemistry (that's what they always asked). And the reason is that biochemistry is not just biology + chemistry.

So, for example, a biochemist is going to look at questions like structural conformation of biological molecules, protein folding patterns, receptor active sites for ligand binding, and synthesizing novel compounds to interact with those molecules.

On the other hand, a biologist cares less about how the chemistry of those interactions happens and more about if the receptor is there, and if the ligand is there, and when the ligand binds to the receptor, this cascade of events occurs that leads to these functions of the cell/organ/organism.

Of course the fields are complimentary, and findings in one inspire research in the other, but they are not the same.

 

[philthechemis]

I completely disagree with this.

Biochemistry is not biology. It is chemistry. And furthermore, biochemistry is not a subset of biology.

Thats like saying calculus is a subset of physics. While one may have overlapping areas with the other, they are completely different areas of study. Biologists and biochemists don't even speak the same language, for Pete's sake!

So tell me then, Samantha: what is the difference between biochemistry and molecular biology?

To u guys who think that biochemistry is not a branch of biology, I'm sorry but that is just plain ignorance! For instance if you look up both 'biology' and 'chemistry' on wikipedia, biochemistry exists as a branch for both these sciences. Add this to the fact that highly regarded dictionaries such as the oxford subjects dictionaries and the henderson dictionary of biological terms all class biochemistry as a major branch of biology. Of course biochemistry is also a branch of chemistry btw, not arguing with that. As with a lot of sciences these days they are all very interdisciplary subjects. It is not true to say that biochemists and biologist do not speak the same knowledge. Real professional biologists should all have at least some adequate knowledge of biochemistry up to first year/second year level at college. The fact is that biochemistry is a very specialized field so of course it would be hard for a biologist trained in let's say conservation biology to talk to the biochemist. But it is also equally true that life can be studied of levels, from cells(cytology) to bodies(anatomy/physiology) to ecosystems(ecology), and biochemistry simply probes deeper into the fundamental nature of life. So therefore biochemistry is undoubtedly a major branch of biology with profound influences in almost all other fields of biology, medicine and other health sciences.

 

[philthechemis]

biochemistry rocks cos of its huge scope and ability to influence both fundamental reseach and perhaps more importantly applied research in biology, chemistry and medicine namely. Along with knowledge drawn from organic chem, inorganic chem, physical chem and other life sciences, it has given us better grasp of the basis of life. Now we can make better vaccines, medicines, help in the process of defeating some forms of cancer and potentially increase our life span and health and well being which is the most important thing of living in my opinion haha.

 

[Cincinnatus]

This thread highlights what we've seen in some other threads lately. The names of these different fields all mean very different things to different people.

 

[epenguin]

To give the idea, if you are a student thinking of doing biology at universtity don't even think for a moment of not doing biochemistry. Not that you will be allowed to. There will be at the least numbers of courses on it that you will have to do, but it will infiltrate practically everything else.

Modern biology is hightly integrated. If you near anyone burbling about 'interdisciplinarity' they are probably out of date, because it is so taken for granted. E.g. I remember having had occasion to go to a conference on Molybdenum enzymes that involved inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, physical organic chemistry, crystallography, molecular biophysics, genetics and genetic engineering in agriculture, microbiology, evolutionary relationships, medicine and medical and population genetics, and I don't remember what else. And they exchanged intensely and no-one batted an eyelid at it - maybe one or two older generation mentioned it as a bit difficult for them to keep up with their students! It was only when I got back from it and some benighted fools asked me was it interdisciplinary? mnya mnyah we want to encourage interdisciplinarity you know, that I reflected on what is taken for granted. It would have been the same in other themes.

Quite a fuss is made of labels here. When you are researching you will rather forget what you speciality is supposed to be - oversimplifying slightly. The labels are moveable. E.g. starting in the 1960's 'biochemistry' began to be considered an old hat label; ' molecular biology' was more fashionable and seemed to get you more grants and students (the young turk mol. biols. liked to refer to biochemists as 'the old-style piss-boilers' ); 'chemistry' is even older hat, unpopular label so anything with chemistry in it played down (associations: stinks, pollution, hard work and difficulty, so bad PR!). So you will get them in the courses, played down in their names and labels. Often these days you will have 'integrated biology' courses, of which the first 2 y or so are strongly chem and biochem.

I'm doubtful about those who say biochem is mostly done in chem depts., maybe local perspectives. In Europe chem depts. have been closing down (including notoriously Kekule's old dept.), giving the biol depts. a teaching problem.

For a student in school aimong at biology or medicine in future I'd strongly recommend getting maximum chemistry, both theory and lab. Those without that are clearly always at a disadvantage at univ.

 

[peterish]

I think biology is a much wider concept, with a lot of branches. Biochemistry, is just a part of chemistry + a part of biology. You can read some books over here, and then get the tips.