Slashdot Mirror


DNA, Fifty Years To the Day

An anonymous reader writes "Today being the fiftieth anniversary (April 2, 1953) of the Watson-Crick double-helical, DNA discovery [to quote, 'We wish to put forward a radically different structure...'], there is an interesting tally of completed gene sequences here, and ones still being worked, including the Ames strain of the anthrax bacteria. It also appears that the only lifeforms not using DNA for code storage are a few viruses like the common cold."

16 of 202 comments (clear)

  1. Rosalind Franklin by SUB7IME · · Score: 5, Informative

    Let's not forget Rosalind Franklin - the woman who actually took the X-ray photographs of the DNA molecule. Without her, Watson and Crick would not have been able to discern the DNA structure!

    1. Re:Rosalind Franklin by shellbeach · · Score: 4, Informative
      Well said ... I was going to mention her myself, but you beat me to it! It's worth noting that Rosalind didn't propose a model herself because she wanted to be sure that she had all the empirical evidence first - and that included the fact that DNA formed two different (A and B) conformations depending on the amount of water present - a fact that Watson and Crick never concerned themselves with (actually, there's a third conformation as well, the really kinky (literally) Z-DNA ... but nobody knew about that back then!)

      So Watson and Crick did not do any experimental reseach, proposed a model based on Rosalind's unpublished results, never gave her any credit ... and, in the end, there was no conclusive proof that their modal was the correct model (in fact, it was Rosalind who provided that proof and improved on their model in the weeks following W&C's publication). Not to mention the fact that Watson performed an utterly dastardly character assasination on her in his book The Double Helix .... If it wasn't so tragic it'd almost be funny ...

      But while we're at it, don't forget that along side Rosalind Franklin was Ray Gosling, a PhD student who did a lot of the work and never got any credit at all. Just like most PhD students, I might add :)

      FWIW, the Brenda Maddox's bio of Rosalind Franklin is fantastic reading - probably the best biography of any scientist I have read. It is inspiring, moving and extremely well researched (especially when the author, AFAIK, had no science background before writing the book).

    2. Re:Rosalind Franklin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      In this article in the current online Scientific American, J. Watson makes some comments on this. Two notable quotes:

      "We didn't know that Rosalind Franklin had in late February turned in the B form because she was leaving King's College. We didn't know her then. I still didn't know about it when I wrote The Double Helix (1968)."

      "We're very famous because DNA is very famous. If Rosalind had talked to Francis [Crick] starting in 1951, shared her data with him, she would have solved that structure. And then she would have been the famous one."

  2. Some interesting info... by radiashun · · Score: 3, Informative

    Click here for video of the anniversary of the discovery of the structure of DNA. This was taped at Cold Springs Harbor Lab, where Watson is currently the director. Also, you can find their original paper that was published in Nature annoucing the discovery. It's interesting to note that since their discovery of DNA's double-helical structure, neither Watson nor Crick have discovered or published anything significant since then.

    1. Re:Some interesting info... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 3, Informative
      Dude, Francis Crick basically built an entire discipline, an entire branch of science. Watson made some substantial contributions to that discipline (mRNA etc.) as well. These two guys didn't just discover the double helix structure of DNA, they did tons of seminal work that set the stage for modern genomics, protein science and molecular biology.


      Ya know, if I only succeed at creating one entirely new field of knowledge in life, I think I'll look back on my life as a success. Also, as a note, for the last 20 years (or more?) Francis Crick has been working on the rather different field of neurobiology and specifically, the biological origins of human consciousness. In particular, "Crick has published extensively on the neural basis of attention, REM sleep, consciousness and visual awareness" to quote his biography blurb from the Salk Institute. Perhaps it hasn't made headlines, but that doesn't mean he hasn't done other important research.


      Most importantly, you don't seem to realize that the way science works is that sometimes you don't really know exactly how important something is when you are working on it. Sometimes, only in retrospect does it become clear if a piece of work is an interesting and novel phenomenon on its own, or more deeply significant, "groundbreaking" research.

    2. Re:Some interesting info... by silhouette · · Score: 3, Informative

      neither Watson nor Crick have discovered or published anything significant since then.

      This is true in Watson's case, unless you count blatantly sexist, racist, unsupported "research" as significant.

      Which we don't. Can you believe this guy received a Nobel Prize?
      He's done at least one other "publication" like this, too.

      --
      Experts agree: everything is fine.
  3. Re:As always, by BornInASmallTown · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you've not read it, The Double Helix is a great book that discusses the discovery from Watson's perspective. He covers his, Franklin's, Crick's, and Linus Paulings's involvement in a very interesting story. It's a short book, and well worth your time.

    Watson rips on Franlin pretty hard in the book, but mainly because of personality conflicts. He acknowledges in the end that without her contributions, they wouldn't have achieved the same success.

  4. Remember, they didn't discover DNA! by ASquare · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...they only described it's structure. The discovery of DNA goes back to at least 1929, possibly earlier (depending on which discovery you're looking for.)

    1865 - Gregor Mendel shows that heredity is passed in discreet units

    1900 - Three scientists independently verify Mendel's work, and formulate the laws of heredity

    1909 - Willhelm Johannsen coins the term gene

    1911 - Thomas Hunt Morgan shows that chromosomes contain genes

    1929 - Phoebus Levin discovers that genes are made up of nucleotides (i.e., genes are made up of DNA)

    1943 - William Astbury obtains first X-ray diffraction pictures of DNA

    1951 - Rosalind Franklin's X-ray diffraction images show DNA has two different forms, and that it takes the form of a helix

    1953 - Watson and Crick formulate their model

  5. ABC's program on Rosalind Franklin by ivi · · Score: 4, Informative


    Here's a lot more of the story of her work:

    Book Talk on "The Dark Lady of DNA..."
    [Broadcast on Saturday 29 March 2003]

    Listen via Audio on Demand from:

    www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/booktalk/audio/booktalk_290 32003_2856.ram

    Brenda Maddox on why the young English biophysicist Rosalind Franklin was never to know how vital her own work was to Francis Crick and James Watson's discovery of 'the secret of life.'

    The biographer of D.H. Lawrence, W.B. Yeats and Nora Barnacle, James Joyce's wife, Brenda Maddox talks about her life of Rosalind Franklin at the Cheltenham Festival of Literature.

    See also:

    "The Dark Lady Of DNA"
    Author: Brenda Maddox/Rosalind Franklin
    Publisher: Harpercollins

  6. Re:viruses are DNA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Viruses are 'particles' that cannot replicate on their own. They contain genetic material, in the form of either DNA or RNA and this genetic material encodes for proteins important for the life cycle of the virus. When a virus infects a cell, it takes over the host cell machinary to manufacture more viruses. Very few viruses are naked strands of genetic material (DNA or RNA), often they are housed in cages of protein and may or may not have membranes (which they will have stolen from the host cell as they bud out of various host cell membranes).

  7. Not a very good link by Mr.+McGibby · · Score: 2, Informative

    Except that the link posted in the post is for microbial genomes only. There are a lot of other genomes that have sequenced. NCBI is better place to look for this info.

    Here is the *definitive* page for completed genomes:

    http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=Genom e

    --
    Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
  8. Re:viruses are DNA? by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 4, Informative
    Some viruses use RNA.

    Influenza, measles, mumps and polio are all RNA based viruses.

    DNA viruses include herpes and hepatitis. I think HIV is a DNA type but I don't recall offhand.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
  9. genetic algorithms by v_1_r_u_5 · · Score: 3, Informative

    DNA is credited to the inception of genetic algorithms. The main idea behind genetic algorithms is the emulatation of natural selection and evolution by means of DNA manipulation. This is accomplished by many DNA manipulation techniques; the two most prominent are crossover, where two different chromosomes swap DNA information, and genetic mutation, where a random [DNA] bit is rotated. If you're interested in genetic algorithms, check out this introduction.

  10. Physics Today Article about Rosalind Franklin by MacJedi · · Score: 4, Informative
    There was a pretty good (and free) article about Rosalind Franklin in Physics Today last month that gives a good overview of her, her X-ray photographs, and her much discussed role in the discovery of DNA.

    /joeyo

    --
    2^5
  11. Re:I Was Thinking... by CharlesEGrant · · Score: 2, Informative
    Gene therapy is a standard treatment nowadays

    Gene therapy is NOT a standard treatment for anything. It is still experimental and has been shut down completely two or three times in the last decade because of unexpected deaths of patients. The only success of gene therapy to date has been a French study in which 9 children with SCID (Severe Combined Immune Deficiency) were succesfully treated with gene therapy. Even this study has been halted for now because two of the patients have developed leukemia-like symptoms.

    Doubtless gene therapy has great promise, but it will be decades before it is a standard treatment.
  12. Re:Games and books... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Informative

    And who knows, maybe he is a bit more informed about DNA than the originating poster. While a lot of viruses and retroviruses have RNA making up their genome, a lot do in fact have single or double-stranded DNA.