Talk:Double helix
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme. |
||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| High | This article is on a subject of High-importance within molecular and cellular biology. | ||
|
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · history · refresh · how to use this template) Rated "top" due to its prominence in popular culture. - tameeria 23:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
This double helix has nothing to do with geometry...It is strictly biology!
(see the article page)
[edit] 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)
- No.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 04:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- See Snopes for more information, it seems the answer is more complicated. 87.66.103.114 (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
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)
