What are the practical applications of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry protein evolution in our lives?

It can improve a lot of substances, isn't it, and it will be of great help to the development of science and technology.

Protein is an important component of genes, and if it can evolve, people can be healthier.

It can be a good guide for us to study biological proteins.

The human genome has 3 billion base pairs, and the number of human genes is about 20,000.

I think there's a lot of actually help, don't you think?

I think the biggest effect is to save the current food.

Nobel Prize-winning biochemists include Jacobs Henryx Van Torff, William Ramsay, Adolf von Beyer, Ernest Rutherford, Marie Curie, and many others.

1. Jacobs Henriques Vantoff.

Jacobus Henricus Van Toff'T. Hoff, 30 August 1852 – 11 March 1911), born in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, died in Berlin, Germany, was a Dutch chemist.

In 1901, he became the first Nobel Prize winner in chemistry for his "discovery of the laws of chemical kinetics and osmotic pressure in solution and his contribution to the theory of stereochemistry and chemical equilibrium".

2. Edward Büchner.

He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1907 for his discovery of cell-free fermentation, and was hailed as a "genius chemist born as a farmer".

III. Otto Wallach.

In 1895, he contributed to the study of alicyclic compounds by successfully synthesizing fragrances for the first time. For his outstanding contributions, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1910.

4. Emile Adolf von Behring.

Emile Adolf von Behring (also known as Emel Adolf von Behring) was a German physician who was awarded the first Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1901 for his work on the serum of diphtheria.

This has to do with the strong cross-cutting nature of chemistry.

However, we also need to think about the question of why these achievements in biology and physics are not awarded prizes in physiology and medicine. Rather, it is the Chemistry Prize, which largely depends on the contribution and significance of the work of the Nobel Prize.

Take, for example, the 2015 Nobel Prize. The discovery of artemisinin is not an entirely chemical process, but it is a prize in physiology and medicine. Why? Because the discovery and use of artemisinin, the medical significance is far greater than the chemical significance.

Therefore, artemisinin is awarded to the Prize in Physiology and Medicine rather than in Chemistry. And this year's Nobel Prize in Chemistry, DNA Molecular Repair, this is a problem of molecular biology, yes, biological problems are biased towards the molecular level, so it is not an exaggeration to award the Chemistry Prize to explain the problem at the molecular level.

DNA damage repair is indeed related to physiological processes and many disease mechanisms, but this work does not fully reveal how it relates to a specific disease such as cancer, how it causes cancer, and so on. Relatively more biased towards the field of chemistry.

The progress of chemistry depends on people's understanding of the molecular level and microstructure, and on the development of advanced instruments and equipment. And these are closely related to physics. The 2014 Nobel Laureate was for fluorescence microscopy, a technique that is the work of physical optics and electromagnetics applied to biological macromolecules.

But for biology, because there is no biology award, the physiology and medicine award is really a rubbing, and the contribution of physics is not as good as that of chemistry, after all, it is of great significance to see nanoscale biochemistry, but this award of physics can actually be said to be reasonable.

In general, but not absolutely. In life sciences, physics, chemistry are difficult to distinguish. Most of the work at the molecular level is awarded to the Chemistry Prize, and the atomic level or solid macroscopic work is awarded to the Physics Prize. Specific to disease diagnosis,**, the mechanism is dominated by physiological medicine awards.

Microscopic explanations of biology need to rely on chemistry; The microscopic explanation of chemistry depends on physics. So when a biologist is using chemistry to make a breakthrough.

When it breaks and has paradigmatic significance in chemical research, the chemistry prize is in hand. So when a physicist for the unresolved chemistry.

The problem provides a general theoretical solution.

To cite 13 years as an example, this work has actually opened up a new method for theoretical simulation of macromolecules in theoretical computational chemistry. And then a lot of theories.

Chemists used this method to solve theoretical problems that they had previously dared not solve. The contribution to chemistry is, of course, more than the synthesis of a large number of organic matter.

Big. For awards like the Nobel Prize, the work of the winners is generally groundbreaking and inspiring, while traditional chemistry (and I mean the old pedants' definition.

There is already a clear pattern for that kind of chemistry, so it is difficult for such a job to have the strength to win an award.