Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ultra-sensitive microscope reveals DNA processes
New Scientist ^ | November 15, 2005 | Gaia [sic] Vince

Posted on 11/16/2005 3:40:35 AM PST by snarks_when_bored

Ultra-sensitive microscope reveals DNA processes

    * 14:02 15 November 2005
    * NewScientist.com news service
    * Gaia Vince

A new microscope sensitive enough to track the real-time motion of a single protein, right down to the scale of its individual atoms, has revealed how genes are copied from DNA – a process essential to life.

The novel device allows users to achieve the highest-resolution measurements ever, equivalent to the diameter of a single hydrogen atom, says Steven Block, who designed it with colleagues at Stanford University in California.

Block was able to use the microscope to track a molecule of DNA from an E.coli bacterium, settling a long-standing scientific debate about the precise method in which genetic material is copied for use.

The molecular double-helix of DNA resembles a twisted ladder consisting of two strands connected by “rungs” called bases. The bases, which are known by the abbreviations A, T, G and C, encode genetic information, and the sequence in which they appear “spell out” different genes.

Every time a new protein is made, the genetic information for that protein must first be transcribed from its DNA blueprint. The transcriber, an enzyme called RNA polymerase (RNAP), latches on to the DNA ladder and pulls a small section apart lengthwise. As it works its way down the section of DNA, RNAP copies the sequence of bases and builds a complementary strand of RNA – the first step in a new protein.

“For years, people have known that RNA is made up one base at a time,” Block says. “But that has left open the question of whether the RNAP enzyme actually climbs up the DNA ladder one rung at a time, or does it move instead in chunks – for example, does it add three bases, then jump along and add another three bases.

Light and helium

In order to settle the question, the researchers designed equipment that was able to very accurately monitor the movements of a single DNA molecule.

Block chemically bonded one end of the DNA length to a glass bead. The bead was just 1 micrometre across, a thousand times the length of the DNA molecule and, crucially, a billion times its volume. He then bonded the RNAP enzyme to another bead. Both beads were placed in a watery substrate on a microscope slide.

Using mirrors, he then focused two infrared laser beams down onto each bead. Because the glass bead was in water, there was a refractive (optical density) difference between the glass and water, which caused the laser to bend and focus the light so that Block knew exactly where each bead was.

But in dealing with such small objects, he could not afford any of the normal wobbles in the light that occur when the photons have to pass through different densities of air at differing temperatures. So, he encased the whole microscope in a box containing helium. Helium has a very low refractive index so, even if temperature fluctuations occurred, the effect would be too small to matter.

One by one

The group then manipulated one of the glass beads until the RNAP latched on to a rung on the DNA molecule. As the enzyme moved along the bases, it tugged the glass bead it was bonded too, moving the two beads toward each together. The RNAP jerked along the DNA, pausing between jerks to churn out RNA transcribed bases. It was by precisely measuring the lengths of the jerks that Block determined how many bases it transcribed each time.

“The RNAP climbs the DNA ladder one base pair at a time – that is probably the right answer,” he says.

“It’s a very neat system – amazing to be able see molecular details and work out how DNA is transcribed for the first time,” said Justin Molloy, who has pioneered similar work at the National Institute for Medical Research, London. “It’s pretty incredible. You would never have believed it could be possible 10 years ago.”

Journal reference: Nature (DOI: 10.1038/nature04268)


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: biology; chemistry; crevolist; dna; microscopy; rna; rnap; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 1,201-1,219 next last
To: DennisR
For all the evos out there, THIS is science. Something you can actually observe and repeat.

Evolution can be observed.

There is no theorizing involved.

Actually, there is. The theorizing is on explaining why DNA does what it does. It's on explaining why the molecules of DNA act as they do. The observations on how DNA behaves will lead to theories on how life itself works. Theories are the end-result of scientific inquiry. Why do so many creationists seem to think that they are weak spots rather than the fundamental goal of scientific study?

And no made-up pictures of humans coming from apes.

That would hardly be relevant in this particular study.
621 posted on 11/16/2005 9:57:10 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
I don't know anyone alive, save for a few nut cases, who think "everything that could possibly be known is known." The argument has to to with probabilities and statistics.

Argument from incredulity is not a statistical argument. It's a blank assertion that a person's inability to comprehend an event is evidence against the event. A statistical argument would rely upon the calculated statistical probability, not the arguer's personal inability to comprehend.
622 posted on 11/16/2005 10:00:21 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: highball

There is more than a shred of evidence for organized matter and, by extension, and intelligent designer. There is less than an apology for calling you an ass.


623 posted on 11/16/2005 10:01:21 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 603 | View Replies]

Comment #624 Removed by Moderator

Comment #625 Removed by Moderator

To: highball
Keep in mind that Fester thinks that everyone should assume that Genesis is literal truth before doing any research or drawing any conclusions. For Fester that is a starting premise, not a conclusion.

In other words, Fester assumes his conclusion and works backwards to try and justify it. And then he argues that anyone who does not do that is not being scientific.
626 posted on 11/16/2005 10:06:23 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies]

To: Stingy Dog
I have never made such a statement. Prove it!

You are correct. I made a mistake and I apologize. You merely said that you never said that ID was scientific.

Could you explain the purpose for making that statement?
627 posted on 11/16/2005 10:07:17 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

I hardly think the phyisical attributes of DNA to be devoid of statistical/mathematical analysis, and thus arguments pointing toward the reasonable inference of intelligent design.


628 posted on 11/16/2005 10:11:14 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 622 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws; Liberal Classic
He forgot:

But pot
Hits the spot

629 posted on 11/16/2005 10:13:54 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
I hardly think the phyisical attributes of DNA to be devoid of statistical/mathematical analysis, and thus arguments pointing toward the reasonable inference of intelligent design.

Yes, but every statistical argument presented in that regard has been shown to be founded upon faulty assumptions. In any case, swmobuffalo did not reference any statistical analysis at all. Swmobuffalo stated quite clearly that the basis for his or her rejection of anything apart from intelligent design was his or her own inability to comprehend anything other than that. That is an argument from incredulity and a logical fallacy. Why are you attempting to turn swmobuffalo's argument into something that it was not?
630 posted on 11/16/2005 10:13:56 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

Comment #631 Removed by Moderator

To: Dimensio
Keep in mind that Fester thinks that everyone should assume . . .

You must know the mind of Fester better than Fester. Are you the one I've been praying to all these years?

632 posted on 11/16/2005 10:16:31 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
You must know the mind of Fester better than Fester.

I'm going by what you've said in the past.
633 posted on 11/16/2005 10:17:52 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]

To: Stingy Dog
I don't recall the statement you're alluding to. Can you just quote me and ask me a question about it?

Highball said, speaking of ID, that it is not scientific. You replied with "I never said it's scientific."
634 posted on 11/16/2005 10:19:27 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 631 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Please explain the difference between a "starting premise" and a "conclusion."


635 posted on 11/16/2005 10:21:05 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws

Thanks for the explanation.


636 posted on 11/16/2005 10:23:24 PM PST by zot (GWB -- four more years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Please explain the difference between a "starting premise" and a "conclusion."

In the logic system/argument

1) If A then B
2) A
3) B

Statements 1 and 2 are the starting premises and statement 3 is the conclusion.
637 posted on 11/16/2005 10:24:26 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 635 | View Replies]

To: highball
You have an emotional response to something, and actually equate that with physical evidence?

Wow. That's the best indictment of "ID is science" that I've seen so far. Thanks.

Which...brings...us...back...to...DOE! (D'OH !) ;-) ;-) ;-)

From the first post on this thread: "Anybody who reads this article and feels no astonishment is either stupid or not paying attention."

638 posted on 11/16/2005 10:24:37 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

That's okay. You're right, too. I am motivated by a tautology that has scientific veractiy: God created the heavens and the earth and keeps them going. They are intelligently designed in a fashion that exceeds the intelligence of His creation. He knows their ulitimate purpose and direction.

His creation, the human portion, struggles to comprehend His magnificent works. That small segment of His creation engages in science. They can't even figure out that oil is not the be all and end all of energy. They're so stuck in evolutionist notions they can't conceive there is enough energy in a single kernel of corn to electrify 28 LEDS on a red light whore board.


639 posted on 11/16/2005 10:38:21 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies]

To: highball

I delight to inform you that the evidence for black holes is inferential at this time. No one has touched one. Would you care to be the first?


640 posted on 11/16/2005 10:42:58 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660 ... 1,201-1,219 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson