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."
It sure made a great subtitle for the last Solider Of Fortune2 game. ;-)
;-)
Seriously though, any future developments in this area of science will surely pave the way for a new novel from Michael Crichton.
Also today a new base pair was found. In addition to TA,AT,GC,CG the EV pair was found.
Scientists are calling this the EVIL PAIR. Finding this in DNA insures that the organism is PURE EVIL.
The first 500 people to request one, will recieve their very own four-assed monkey.
...will it be another fifty years before I can grow a custom pet?
My real spider monkey can't wait that long to meet the world. Oooo AH AH AHHH!!!!
Seriously, happy 50th, DNA!
Compared to war, all other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance. God, how I love it. - Gen. George Patton
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!
have eliminated the troll-genes back then, before it became too late...
quote: "It also appears that the only lifeforms not using DNA for code storage are a few viruses like the common cold."
Does that mean that NT admins considered a virus since they use hard drives for code storage, opposed to DNA.
Remember that you are unique, just like everybody else.
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.
In honor of the birthday I'm going to make a a cellular peptide cake with mint frosting ;-)
"For instance, when compared to a computer file, the simplest of plant viruses (called viroids) contains a miniscule 240 'bits' of information to sustain their circular chromosome. "
Well I find it interesting to compare this with a computer virus which is nuthing but a software program (usually larger than 240 bits). Which makes me wonder, if we can create a virus... can we someday create a more sophisticated life form?
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.
The government has finally collected a sample from every citizen for the TIA database.
...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
Here's a brief NPR review of a recent biography of Rosalind Franklin and a more extensive review in Scientific American which details the theft of data by Watson/Crick/Wilkins.
foldplay your photos won't know what hit them.
Watson and Crick wouldn't have accomplished much without Chargoff's data either. Chargoff recognized that A and T and G and C were in rougly a 1:1 ratio (# purines = # pyrimidines). Watson and Crick would've been screwed without alot of outside help. For example, they couldn't figure out why their model wasn't coming together. A chemist happened to be walking by one day and pointed out that oxygen is found in the keto, rather than enol form and nitrogen was found in the amino rather than the imino form (in living systems). Crick was a physicist and Watson was more of a general biologist.
"It also appears that the only lifeforms not using DNA for code storage are a few viruses like the common cold."
I was under the impression that viruses were just floating pieces of DNA that get into a cell and reprogram it to produce more of those strands of DNA. How can you say viruses are not using DNA when that is basically what they are? (or else high-school biology has taught me wrong).
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Oh, I don't know about that. Watson and crick came up with some realizations that were pretty important, even if you NEVER actually saw the molecule.
One of the realizations that they made was that there had to be a minimum of three identification units to code for each amino acid, and that more than three would be wasted. Now that sounds pretty simple, doesn't it? But even if you get to see the molecule, if you don't understand that you need to look at three sequential base pairs (a codon) together, and that you hence need to have the alignment right, then actually seeing the structure of the molecule doesn't get you very far.
For the curious, the reason that they needed a minimum of three base pairs was this:
You have four different ways to get a single base pair. If a single base pair were the functional unit, you could code for a total of four different amino acids. Way too low. With two sequential base pairs, you could code for sixteen. Still too low. If you use three sequential base pairs, you could code for up to 64 distinct amino acids, which more than covers the number of aminos that humans were known to be capable of producing.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
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_29
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
If you are interested in learning about the abusive mistreatment of women researchers look no further than The Double Helix.
foldplay your photos won't know what hit them.
This story was also covered in this month's Smithsonian magazine and was a decent read.
Now if they could only create a DNA custom engineered beowulf cluster of atomic supermen...
-1 Overrated (Too many big words for me to comprehend)
Now only if they were to find a way to fit the shrunken glove....
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
So viruses are considered "alive" now?
begin 644
Or Linus Pauling. W&C admitted that he was very close (like months from figuring it out). (This from a New Yorker book review I read.) While Franklink may be great, and certainly she was slighted since for example in my HS biology book they have her fameous photo without attributing it to her. But, W&C or Pauling would have certainly figured it out much faster if they had access to her information.
Discreet - Free from ostentation or pretension; modest.
Discrete - Consisting of unconnected distinct parts.
I dont think Mendel meant to say that the passing is done in a modest fashion.
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
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.
m e
Here is the *definitive* page for completed genomes:
http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=Geno
Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
I'd be hard pressed to call prions alive - they actually are misfolded versions of single, native proteins. Prions can impart "information", since they propagate by inducing normally folded proteins to misfold, but calling them a living thing is a bit of a stretch.
Douglas Noel Adams
born March 11th, 1952
died May 11th, 2001
I know, different DNA, but hey...
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
One could construct a two-tape turing machine that simulates the four combinations; if you're interested in mixing computer science with DNA, check out this paper.
"Dr. Watson, will you please comment a little on the role and contributions of Dr. Rosalind Franklin in the discovery of the structure of the DNA?"
... that DNA was just a late college April Fools joke and the original pranksters simply haven't had the heart to let the world know it's being made fun of.
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
I bet it was really discovered on April 1st, but they were worried that /. would post 5 copies of the discovery.
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.
Whatever you think of the politics of the announcement, it was first made public in The Eagle, which is still a local pub in Cambridge, and worth a visit if you're in town. It's a little over-commercialised (it was a major hang-out for USAF folks in WWII, and gets more than its fair share of tourists), but it's still a good pub.
/joeyo
2^5
Did Watson and Crick wait until April 2, 1953 so that people couldn't dismiss their new-fanged double-helix stuff as an April Fool's joke?
I was thinking about this very subject the other day.
It seems strange to me that while, in principle, the discovery of the structure of DNA was a wonderful thing, it doesn't seem to have affected the average person's life very much. Far less, it seems, then Dr. Fleming's noticing that bread mold contamination was killing his bacterial cultures.
Perhaps I'm missing something, and understanding the structure of DNA is contributing more than I think. But, it occurs to me that if we could put a man on the moon in about 10 years, we ought to be able to do something more with DNA in 50 years.
I suspect that science has become too bureaucratized and institutionalized to know which end is up anymore.
Sigh.
What a strong woman.
(I'm sure you've all seen the photo of the model, it's huge and must be quite heavy too with all the metal parts.)
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
..but the plural of virus is viruses or (to use the Latin form) viri. More generally, the plural of a Latin noun ending with -us is -i, although in modern English it's OK to use English plural.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
I bet nobody took them seriously for a week afterwards!!
/. to overdo the April fools day).
Or probably people believed more those days (there was no
Wouldn't this story have been more appropriately placed unter the biotech topic?(hint, check the icon)
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
the April Fools Day tradition. Those poor guys never thought they'd be right.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
But virii *do* use DNA for code storage, and the article had absolutely nothing to contradict that.
You're correct, and the summary had absolutely nothing to contradict that also. *most* viruses use DNA for their genetic code. *some* use RNA. (hence the comment 'except for a few viruses').
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Interestingly enough, 50 years ago was 1953 :)
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
1. Find obvious article to whore in.
2. Skim the summary.
3. Reply and title your post "In other news..."
4. Take premise of article and twist it into something obviously absurd. Make sure it is not clever, original, or funny in any way.
5. Wait for dull, crackhead moderators with itchy mouse fingers to click it up into the various realms of Funny That Is Not.
I will either be modded down, someone will post another "step" to my list that references responses like mine, or some Anonymous Coward will copy my style as they usually do.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Of course, let us not forgot that Douglas Noel Adams was born in Cambridge nine months before the other DNA formulation.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Hmmm ... you might be interested in reading what Brenda Maddox has to say about that in her biography of Rosalind Franklin, "Rosalind Franklin: the Dark Lady of DNA". I'm sorry, but Watson's portrayal of her was at best stupid and insensitive and at worst a cruel deliberate character assasination of someone who was not only dead and could not reply, but had also been a good friend of his in the years following the discovery of DNA's structure.
Maddox's only explanation is that Watson's remarks about Franklin were - whether conciously or unconciously - an attempt to justify the stealing of her results: by portraying her as someone who jealously guarded her data and yet could not interpret it (and nothing could be further from the truth), he thus implied that he was doing science a credit by obtaining her data and making use of it - even if he had to resort to doing it behind her back.
And if you still want to defend The Double Helix, I could also add that the book was refused publication by Watson's University (which was the first publisher he took it to) after a large number of complaints from the other scientists mentioned in it that it was grossly defamatory - not only of Rosalind Franklin but also of almost every other person who featured in the book short of Watson himself!
I heard in a Genetics conference yesterday from a man named Sam Rhine that the aniversary was on the 25th and thats why the human genome project has changed its target completion date to April 25 2003 because it would be exactly 50 years later (this was a date set by groups of hopeful geneticists at the start of the project but not the original offical date) Im gonna check my notes or a recording of the lecture to verify this but it is correct to the best of my beliefs
Bottles.
Also today a new base pair was found. In addition to TA,AT,GC,CG the EV pair was found.
Scientists are calling this the EVIL PAIR. Finding this in DNA insures that the organism is PURE EVIL.
qslack.com
Pauling did publish a proposed structure for DNA a few weeks before W&C's paper (in fact, it was his publication that drove them to have another shot at model building) - but Pauling's model was attrocious. Like W&C's first attempt, it was a triple helix with the phosphates on the inside, not on the outside (a fact which, incidentally, was demonstrated by Franklin a year before).
But, W&C or Pauling would have certainly figured it out much faster if they had access to her information.
I don't know what you're talking about here - W&C did have access to her data, without her knowledge or permission - and it was the only way they could propose a model. To put it simply, her oft-reprinted photo was the supreme evidence that the B-form of DNA was a helix.
And Rosalind Franklin (and Ray Gosling, her PhD student) were very, very close to solving the structure, not only of the B-form of DNA but also of the dehydrated A-form of the molecule. They had recognised that both forms were a double helix and had come close to recognising the significance of the the Chargraff ratios of base-pairs at the time of W&C's publication. Their only "failing" was that they wanted to make sure that any model they proposed was in fact the correct one by having X-ray crystallographic data to support it. W&C never cared about any of that, and never bothered to check whether their model was accurate. That's why they "figured it out faster"!
Well, technically viruses, like the common cold, are not considered lifeforms.
They would have discovered it one day earlier. Then we would all be going around wondering if it was some really cool April Fools Day joke ;-)
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Happy 50!
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
I thought viruses used to be considered non-living since they could not reproduce on their own... They hae to use their host's cellular machinary to reproduce.
But perhaps the thinking on this has changed...
Or bank workers that can add two positive numbers without getting a negative result.
If you are interested in learning about the abusive mistreatment of women researchers look no further than The Double Helix.
This happened in the programming field as well. The first computer programmers were women. When photographs of the ENIAC were first taken, people would assume that the six women standing next to the racks flipping switches was just there for show. Betty Holberton was actually one of the programmers for the mother of all computers. Interesting short article in Science & Technology by Rachel K. Sobel. Forgot the issue.
There is also an interesting biography on Rosalind Franklin by Brenda Maddox as well.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
...it was one day late for april fools...
-=fshalor
It has been a couple years since I read The Double Helix, but if I remember correctly Watson & Crick were given permission to review Rosalind's x-ray data by her primary investigator (PI) for whom Rosalind was post doc'ing.
Another stretch, if I have my data ownership theory together it is the PI who owns the data. Usually it's his grants they would be using, his lab space, his machines. Anyways, I think that's how the legalistics work. Therefore it's his perogative whether to enter a collaboration with or share data.
(and just to cover my rear IANAL and I haven't read the book in a few years..but I am a BioChemist and think, although I'm sure someone will disagree, I understand data ownership at least on an elementary basis)
RNA has been demonstrated to have enzyme-like properties in many cases, in some cases even being able to cleave itself if spliced properly. There are more than a few organisms storing information on means other than DNA though few do so exclusively. And for those who doubt, Ms. Franklin's work was most certainly pirated by Crick, Watson, and wilkins. Had this same situation occured today, Ms. Franklin could easily have defeated them in court for theft of intellectual property. Crick was a 10th year PhD student whose previous explorations into whale hemoglobin hadn't led to as much as hoped while Watson was a Harvard postdoc looking for his first breakthrough. At least Wilkins already had a working laboratory, but this does not excuse their actions. Without Franklin's picture, it would have been months or years before the structure would be correctly elucidated (remember, people like Linus Pauling were trying models at that time which included 3-part helices with nucleotides sticking away from the phosphate bonds, etc.)
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
the famous Ada Lovelace, the world's very first computer programmer. Back when Babbage's analytical engine was just an idea she was already writing programs for it.
This sig wasn't worth reading, was it.
The proper plural in English is viruses. Took my Ph.D. qualifiers a few months ago and actually got asked this.
You *are* wrong. Only very few RNA viruses are actually retroviruses - where RNA is transcribed back to DNA in the host cell. Many other viruses use RNA to carry their genetic information. Among these are the Arenavirus, Rhinovirus, paramyxovirus, (colds) the influenza (flu) virus. DNA viruses are much more stable than RNA viruses. Vaccinations are possible for smallpox and polio because they are DNA viruses which evolve more slowly. RNA viruses are less stable than those made with DNA. They change more rapidly and make more mistakes while replicating. RNA may be similar to DNA, but this is irrelevant - it is still a very different molecule. It is thought that life arose as RNA, because it is more reactive. (RNA's instability is due to its hydroxide group on the ribose).
So what are prions to be classified as?
Infectious toxins maybe.
There are some very simple viruses for which you could make almost the same argument for.
Though I guess if you classified prions as living, you would have to call plasmids living as well.
She was not the first to see a DNA molecule. In fact, no one has seen a DNA molecule. It is too thin to be seen.
She was the first to produce an X-ray diagram of its structure.
And what about the fact that three years ago scientists reached 45+ years awaited consensus that DNA:
1) is never only double-stranded, but it can be single, double and triple strand
2) is never simetrical double helix, but always a bit skew
3) does not have 2 and 3 links between bases, but only (always) 2 links between purins and pirimidins.
If anyone still cares, science is about understanding things as they are, not as we would like them to be.
Doing a good job is like spilling coffee on a dark suit, you feel warm all over, but nobody notices.
Who wouldn't like to see the discussions on this, now?
Enig? Det alt for hot det smor!
Please note that the actual date of the discovery was February, 28, 1953. Not April, 2nd, when it was first published.
--- Sigmentation Fault - Comments Dumped
Watson, Crick and Rosalind Franklin's discovery of DNA.
I don't understand how you can attain super-star-scientist status just for discovering a new chemical.
I understand that DNA is supposed to be the programming code of almost every known "life" form (where life is considerable larger set than what most people think).
However, discovering that there is such a thing, and discovering the actual chemicals that make up such a thing, is as important as discovering that wires tend to conduct electricrity well.
The person who is able to actually decode the DNA code, and create any life form, will be the true super-star scientist.
I also think people overestimate the meaning of DNA. To some, it proves evolution. But to others, it is yet another example of an intelligent design (hence, designed by an intelligent being) of the universe around us.
I mean, if you were God, wouldn't you write a code that could be used to program up any animal imaginable?
So to me, the existence of something like DNA just reinforces my belief in God and the creation.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
I think that the anniversary is actually 25th April, national DNA day, this year! http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/features/dnaday/ Talking of DNA code I have mine! I stored it and got it done with a cool product I got at http://www.catgee.com
I may be coming at this with some out of date knoledge, but when I did my Biochemistry MSc there were several bacteria (Prokaryotes) that had RNA Genomes.
Please can you at least try to get fundamental facts right in your articles.
If you don't know the answer to a problem, research it don't guess.
HT
--
http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/issues/Comsci98/comp
It's an account of how the DNA code was 'cracked', the next major problem after the structure was solved, from the point of view of a computer science writer ( "What fascinated me about the code-breaking effort was how quickly a biochemical puzzle--the relation between DNA structure and protein structure--was reduced to an abstract problem in symbol manipulation.").
Among the two major viral classes, they are either rod-shaped or have a quasi-spherical shape termed an icosahedron. Similar to a miniature soccer ball, the icosahedron is composed of 5-sided and 6-sided faces (pentamers and hexamers).
This is a truncated icosahedron. The one formed with pentagons and hexagons is special because it's the roundest polyhedron possible with this number of faces or vertices, which probably has something to do with the success of this shape in virii.
An icosahedron is formed of 20 triangles and 12 vertices.
Karma police, I've given all I can, it's not enough, I've given all I can, but we're still on the payroll.
All he said was that sun exposure may be linked with sexual drive and that obesity lowers charisma. The former was a valid speculation based on statistical evidence, the latter is obvious to anyone even though nobody wants to admit it openly. And so what if he showed some pictures of scantily clad women to illustrate his point? If scantily clad pictures were demeaning to women, bikinis would not have been all that popular. Nobody is forcing women to dress sexy; they dress sexy because they want to, and to suggest otherwise is indeed sexist.
Watson and Crick did not come up with the concept of the 3 base codon. That was Crick and Sydney Brenner. To learn more, read this: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879 696362/qid=1049381159/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-967590 7-2981552?v=glance&s=books
It caries an enzyme that converts this RNA to DNA which is then inserted into the host cell genome.
Also of interest is the fact that this enzyme - reverse transcriptase - is a favorite target of antiviral drugs. AZT is probably the best known drug of this type. What makes it an attractive target is the fact that nothing other than retroviruses use any form of this enzyme - so taking it out shouldn't harm the host. What makes this more complicated, however, is the fact that the enzyme is similar in operation to other DNA/RNA polymerases, so drugs which take out the virus also tend to damage rapidly dividing cells (just as chemotherapy does). The most common effects are a depressed immune system and lost hair. The immune system isn't a big deal for folks who have AIDS - it only can improve from the untreated state.
Many HIV strains have evolved to be immune to most antiretroviral therapies. The treatment now in favor is drugs which target a protease needed for viral assembly.
He spoke at Berkeley and many faculty members walked out on his talk because it was simultaneously offensive and had no data. A piece on this in the Chronicle mentioned this walkout and the faculty members who admitted to walking out received hate mail from people who read it.
Go to pubmed and look at Crick's publication record and then Watson's. See for yourself.
Not necessarily, there are some biological differences between different racial groups (which is why we have different races in the first place). A biological influence may be restricted to humans of asian descent, for instance, which will exclude all cultures created by people of other races. Furthermore, cultural influence may go both ways, either enhancing or inhibiting the effect; just because it is not visible, does not mean it is not there.
If you do not generalize, you can not think. The only way of acquiring knowledge is by generalizing from specific data and creating higher-level concepts. When we create stereotypes for people of a specific race, or gender, or occupation, we do so by generalizing on the information available to us. Some of this information may be incorrect, some of it may be correct, and the validity of the stereotype depends on that. So when you meet a woman and think "she's a female, and is probably bad at math", you are simply changing your expectation levels based on previous experience of meeting women who were bad at math (God knows I've met a lot of those, and only three who were not). People who complain about stereotypes should instead complain about their causes. Black people should complain about the stupid and ignorant black people who hang out on the steets selling drugs, terrorizing their 'hood, and generally caring about nothing but living through yet another miserable day. It is they who create the impression that all black people are "animal scum" or worse, and the intelligent and successful members of the race suffer for it. (The 'hood culture, incidentally, is that of poverty, not of race. Poor white people hang out there too, but there always seems to be more poor blacks than poor whites for some reason)
Look at the nudist clubs. They wear nothing at all for reasons that have nothing to do with sex.
This argument comes from a typically socialist attitude that people should be protected from themselves. If she is hurting herself in the long run (with which I would disagree, since by learning the male reaction to such clothes she would gain valuable experience on how to [or how not to] get what she wants), it is nobody's business but hers. Every person must own his life if he is to have a life in the first place. If you insist on living his life for him, you deprive him of his most valuable posession, of existance.
This will only happen if she truly lacks any other distinguishing qualities and talents. Nobody gets turned down on a job interview for looking go