Talk:Double helix

May 2008

The structure and content of the article was completely revised. Almost all of the changes I made are accompanied by scientific references. --Naturespace (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

The late philosopher George W. Roberts, then of Duke University, with his colleague the mathematician Bill Pohl, published a paper in the Journal of Mathematical Biology "Topological consideration in the theory of replication of DNA" (Vol 6, No 4; Oct 78; pps 383-402; Springer Verlag) with the thesis that DNA forms a "Twin Helix" instead of a "Double Helix". The two strands of a Twin Helix are not topologically connected; imagine two slinkies, side by side, and slid together. The strands of a Double Helix are connected; imagine two straight wires side by side, then twisted together from the ends. They can not be slid apart without being first unravelled.

The arguement is that the Twin Helix would be thermodynamically feasible for enzymes to seperate. At the time, X-Ray Crystalography was not sufficiently advanced to indicate the precise topology directly. One can hope that by now the issue has been resolved by someone.

The Twin Helix hypothesis may seem simplest and therefore likliest, but it was not accepted by the molecular biology community at the time.

Peter H. St.John, M.S. 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This double helix has nothing to do with geometry...It is strictly biology!

(see the article page)

(answering the unsigned comment above) Biology does not exclude math. In this case, math is the servant of biology, providing models. Back in the 70's (I can't prove it now) Roberts (cf above) had a letter from Crick, rebutting the thesis. (Pretty darn cool to have hate mail from a Nobelist). That is, at the time, it was accepted that "double helix" referred to the geometrical object, as a model for the biological object. Looking around today, lo these three decades later, it would seem that in Biology "double helix" refers to "pair of helices connected by nucleotide bonds" and make no assumption about the topological connectedness; that is, instead of resolving the question, it's (seeming to me) ignored as immaterial. But it's still a scientific question: are the two helices topologically connected, so they have to be unwound as they are separated, or are they not, so they can be just slid apart like two slinkies? I just can't believe nobody in crystallography has been able to resolve this since way back then. If the thesis is correct then Roberts and Pohl deserve a bit of credit. They did get hate mail over it :/ Incidentally, the article cited in the Journal of Mathematical Biology is available online now, at: Topological Considerations

Pete St.John (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rumor I heard on late night VH1 programming

That the guy who came up with the idea of the double helix was at the time under the influence of LSD. Any truth to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigboy (talk • contribs) 02:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Snopes for more information, it seems the answer is more complicated. 87.66.103.114 (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My alteration

I changed 'based on work by Rosalind Franklin' to 'stolen from...' as it is fact that Maurice Wilkins saw Rosalind Franklin's work which showed the double helical structure and told Crick and Watson her findings, aggravated by her patience and thoroughness. Feel free to debate this, but I feel this is historically accurate. -Rich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.4.112 (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it from stolen to taken to get rid of any controversy the user considers this implicates, dispite it being recorded in any history book of DNA. I have also added a small paragraph on the aftermath of the discovery, though only small! Hopefully others will add to it later. --Richb91 (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalind Franklin and the Nobel Prize

I have reworded the text dealing with Rosalind Franklin. That she died before they were awarded and that they are not awarded posthumously are both facts. Whether she would have got one had she lived is more pov. There are reliable sources that say her work deserved one, but only three are awarded in each subject each year. Her death means that we will never know whether the third award would have gone to her or Wilkins. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]