[Downloaded free from http://www.j-pcs.org on Monday, September 26, 2022, IP: 118.96.159.

50]

Curriculum in Cardiology
History of Medicine

Story of the Gene

Soumi Das, Amitabh Biswas1
Department of Cardiology, AlIMS, New Delhi, India, 1College of Natural Sciences, Arba Minch University, Ethiopia

Abstract
A lot of people believe that Watson and Crick discovered DNA, but it is not the case. Rather, it was first identified by Friedrich Miescher
who coined the term nuclein for this unknown substance. Later, a series of researchers carried out further work which revealed the details
of DNA. Franklin’s Photo‑51 is one of the major clues for Watson and Crick for discovering DNA double helix. Without the work done
by earlier scientists, Watson and Crick could not get into the conclusion of 1953 that DNA exists as a three‑dimensional double helix.
This discovery was a turning point which had significant impact on science for years to come. In this review, we aim to discuss how gene
discovery has moved from the early theories to gene and finally to DNA.

Keywords: Alkaptonuria, codon, inheritance

Introduction
In the era when there was no concept and proof of evolution
and inheritance, two great scholars Hippocrates and Aristotle
hypothesized inheritance. According to Hippocrates, all the
parts of a human came together in a man’s seed and forms into
a human being inside a womb. Later, his theory was criticized
by Aristotle and a new theory was given, i.e. the theory of
transmission of information which made a better sense. In
the Charak Samhita, ancient medical practitioners wrote that
the characteristics of any child are determined by mother’s
reproductive material, father’s sperm, diet of any pregnant
woman, and people around the pregnant woman.
In the early 18th century, people started having better knowledge
of plants and animals. Agriculturists started developing hybrid
plant and animal species, but till then, they did not have a
theoretical knowledge of inheritance. They knew that the cause
of variation is hidden in the process of sexual reproduction.
George Mendel was the first to show the inheritance patterns
in pea plants where he observed dominant and recessive traits
which were following simple statistical rules. He was lucky
in selecting those traits, the gene for which was present on
different chromosomes. His conclusion was ahead of his time,
but was not accepted for 34 years by the scientific community.
Charles Darwin in 1868 gave the theory of pangenesis,
according to which minute particles called gemmules or
pangene from each somatic cell get collected in the gametes
and then get passed to the zygote. Gradually, this theory lost
popularity when biologists replaced the theory of pangenesis
with germ‑plasm theory and then with chromosomal theories
of inheritance and finally the concept of gemmules by genes.
Here, we aim to discuss how gene discovery has moved from
the early theories to gene and finally to DNA.
Early Studies by Charles Darwin
Charles Darwin [Figure 1] was born on February 12, 1809,
at Shrewsbury. At the age of 22, he went for a voyage on
HMS Beagle with Captain Robert Fitzroy. Captain Robert
Fitzroy wanted a young companion who could share his
responsibilities. Being a budding naturalist, Darwin was
flooded with opportunities as the ship was equipped for
scientific purposes, [1] so he accompanied the captain.
Darwin during the voyage read his Grandfather’s Zoonomia
and derived the hypothesis that species change with time.
Charles Darwin after returning from his 5‑year voyage
started outlining the Origin of Species in 1842. The Origin
of Species was published on November 1859. Darwin
Address for correspondence: Soumi Das,
Department of Cardiology, AIIMS, New Delhi, India.
E‑mail: soumidas05@gmail.com

Access this article online This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to
Quick Response Code: remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit
Website: is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
www.j‑pcs.org
For reprints contact: reprints@medknow.com

DOI:
10.4103/jpcs.jpcs_28_18 How to cite this article: Das S, Biswas A. Story of the gene. J Pract
Cardiovasc Sci 2018;4:132-8.

132 © 2018 Journal of the Practice of Cardiovascular Sciences | Published by Wolters Kluwer ‑ Medknow

[Downloaded free from http://www.j-pcs.org on Monday, September 26, 2022, IP: 118.96.159.50]
Das and Biswas: Gene story
Figure 1: Charles Darwin.
himself says that the origin of species is the “mystery of
mysteries.”[2]
In the Origin of Species, the key component is the concept
of evolution by natural selection. According to Darwin,
advantageous variations within living systems are more likely
to survive and reproduce at a higher rate. Natural selection
is a process that obtains in the adaptation of a being to its
environment by means of selectively reproducing changes
occurring in its genotype.[3] In natural selection, Darwin said
that man chooses only for his desired thing and which is useful
for them, but nature selects only those individuals which is
useful for variation and are best adapted for environment, and
others which are less fit for environment they are rejected by
nature.
Galapagos Islands
Charles Darwin spent 5 weeks in the Galapagos Islands.
Galapagos Islands were named after the large tortoises that
were endemic to the area. This is an archipelago of volcanic
islands which are situated around the equator in the Pacific
Ocean. The Galapagos Islands are a group of islands of
different sizes lying on the equator almost 1000 km west of
Ecuador. These islands seemed to be a little world within itself.
Darwin noticed that the finches on the different islands are
similar to each other, but they showed differences in their size,
beaks, and claws from island to island. Darwin hypothesized
that these species had a common ancestor which later evolved
into 13 different species. These finches adapted themselves
according to their environment and habitats, thus becoming
progressively more different from the original population.
He wrote, “The distribution of tenants of this archipelago
would not be nearly so wonderful, if for instance, one island has
a mocking‑thrush and a second island some other quite distinct
species. But it is the circumstance that several of the islands
possess their own species of tortoise, mocking‑thrush, finches,
and numerous plants, these species having the same general
habits, occupying analogous situations, and obviously filling
Journal of the Practice of Cardiovascular Sciences  ¦  Volume 4 ¦ Issue 2 ¦ May‑August 2018
Figure 2: Gregor Mendel.
the same place in the natural economy of this archipelago,
that strikes me with wonder.”
These finches were the best example of evolution on the
islands. The finches of the Galapagos Islands gave an example
of adaptive radiation, which is the formation of new species
from ancestral species. Finches which got adapted to the
environment survived and the rest died off.
Thus, it can be concluded that individuals who adapt to their
environment can only survive and reproduce. These variations
when inherited by the offspring cause selection to occur in
the population, thus maintaining the advantageous variations.
Darwin wrote “If during the long course of ages and under
varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the
several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be
disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometrical powers
of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a
severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed;
then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations
of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions
of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure,
constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think
it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever
had occurred useful to each being’s own welfare, in the same
way as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But
if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly
individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of
being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong
principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring
similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have
called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection.”
Gregor Mendel [Figure 2] was born on July 20, 1822, at Austria.
He was known as the Father of Genetics. On the basis of his
experiment on work with pea (Pisum sativum) plants, Gregor
Mendel postulated the principles of inheritance. Mendel chooses
the pea plant because of frequent availability and their offspring
are easily and quickly reproduced. Gregor Mendel’s deliberate
idea and calculations made his experiment with pea (P. sativum)
133
[Downloaded free from http://www.j-pcs.org on Monday, September 26, 2022, IP: 118.96.159.50]

Das and Biswas: Gene story

plant successful. Experiment on plant hybridization was
presented by Mendel in a journal “The proceeding of the Brunn
society of natural history” in 1865,[4] but his work was ignored by
scientists at that time, because at that time, scientists were busy in
the controversy arisen by Darwin’s theory of Origin of Species.[5]
Finally, his work got published in 1866. Later, in 1900, Hugo
de Vries, Carl Correns, and Erich von Tschermak rediscovered
Mendelism and slowly the significance of Mendelism and
genetics was understood around the world.
Mendel’s Experiments
Gregor Mendel studied seven types of traits in garden pea.
He selected garden pea (P. sativum) for two reasons: (1) Peas
were available in distinct shapes and color and (2) Peas can
self‑pollinate or cross pollinate.[6] Mendel chooses each
character and grew them for about 2 years to know that they
were pure or not. Mendel was fortunate enough to get only two
phenotypes for a particular character. The word phenotype was
neither coined nor been used by Mendel during his experiments.
These seven characters are summarized in Table 1.
Initially, he started his experiments with flower colors: purple
and white flower colors. Purple‑flowered line: when crossed
with purple‑flowered line, the offspring were all purple;
similarly, white‑flowered line produced only white line. When
he did the reciprocal cross, i.e., reversing the sex of the plant,
he obtained the same results.
Now, when he crossed purple‑flowered plant with
white‑flowered plant, the first filial generation had all purple
flowers. Mendel then self‑pollinated F1 plants and interestingly
the white phenotype reappeared in some of the plants and
the ratio was 3 (purple):1 (white). Then, he did the same
experiment with other six characters and found the same 3:1
ratio in F2 generation.
Such cross where only one character is involved is known as
monohybrid cross.
With this finding, the blending inheritance theory was getting
discarded and Mendel introduced the term dominant and
recessive character. He proposed that the purple phenotype was
dominant over white phenotype and the F1 generation receives
both the dominant and recessive characters from their parents
which later on get expressed in F2 generation.
Later, he crossed pea plants differing in two characters and
such crosses are called dihybrid crosses. He crossed round
and yellow characters with wrinkled and green characters
and the F1 generation was round and yellow. When he
selfed F1 generation, the F2 progeny showed four different
phenotypes in 9 (round yellow seeds):3 (round green seeds):3
(wrinkled yellow seeds):1 (wrinkled green seeds) ratio.
Reciprocal cross gave the same results.
Thus came the Law of Segregation and the Law of Independent
assortment.
With these experiments, Mendel for the first time laid the
foundation of new science called Genetics. For 35 years, his
work was being ignored until it was rediscovered by 1900 Hugh
de Vries, Carl Correns, and Erich von Tschermak.
Friedrich Miesche [Figure 3] was born on August 13, 1844,
in Switzerland in an intellectual family.[7] His father was a
physician and uncle was a well‑known embryologist.
Miescher wanted to work in the field of research, but due to his
father’s wish, at the age of 17, he started his medical studies
and got specialized as an otologist. Due to his poor hearing
(ear infection during childhood), he had to face problems in
examining his patients; therefore, he decided to pursue his
career in research. Miescher then went to the University of
Tubingen, Germany, to study histochemistry where he worked
in the laboratory of Adolph Strecker and Hoppe Seyler.[8]
Hoppe Seyler’s laboratory was one of the first in Germany to
focus on “physiological chemistry.”
They had started the work on isolating the molecules
that are made up of cells and introduced the term proteid
which later became protein.[9] Miescher started working
on lymphoid cells, but working on lymph nodes was very
difficult. So, he started collecting fresh surgical bandages
from the nearby surgical clinics and washed off the pus.
Initially, he was working on proteins, as cells are composed
of proteins and lipids. During these experiments, Miecher

Table 1: Traits studied by Gregor Mendal

Characters Dominant Recessive
Stem length Tall Dwarf
Flower position Axial Terminal
Flower color or, seed coat color Purple White
Grey White
Pod shape Inflated Constricted
Pod color Green Yellow
Cotyledon color Yellow Green
Seed form Round Wrinkled Figure 3: Friedrich Miescher.

134 Journal of the Practice of Cardiovascular Sciences  ¦  Volume 4  ¦  Issue 2  ¦  May‑August 2018
[Downloaded free from http://www.j-pcs.org on Monday, September 26, 2022, IP: 118.96.159.50]
Das and Biswas: Gene story
observed that an unknown substance was getting precipitated
when acid was added and was getting dissolved in the
presence of alkali. Further, it resisted protease digestion,
thus indicating the unknown substance was not protein. He
wrote “In my experiments with weakly alkaline solutions,
when  neutralising the solution, I could obtain precipitates
that could not be dissolved either in water, acetic acid, very
dilute hydrochloric acid, or in solutions of sodium chloride,
and which thus could not belong to any of the hitherto known
proteins.”[10] Further analysis showed that this substance
contained large amount of phosphorous and no sulfur.
Serendipitously, Miescher discovered DNA. Since he had
isolated it from nucleus, it was known as nuclein. After
discovering nuclin in leukocytes, he examined it in different
cell types: testes, kidney, nucleated erythrocytes, and yeast
cell. There also he could find nuclin.
However, getting this published was not easy for Miescher
as Hoppe Seyler himself wanted the experiments to be
replicated for further confirmation. In 1870, there was a war
between Germany and France leading to further delay in the
publication. Finally, the article got published in 1871 entitled
“Ueber die chemischeZusammensetzung der Eiterzellen”
(On the Chemical Composition of Pus Cells) along with P.
Plo ́ s article.[8]
Sir Archibald Edward Garrod [Figure 4] was born on November
25, 1857, to Sir Alfred Baring Garrod. He got educated as a
physician but was more of a scientist. Garrod himself said
“Clinical medicine is not really my main interest, I am a wanderer
down the by‑paths of medicine.”[11] He pursued his doctorate
degree on rheumatoid arthritis from Oxford University.[11] Garrod
was the first to conclude that rheumatoid arthritis and gout are
two different disorders and patients diagnosed with gout have
increased uric acid in blood.[12] He has been recognized as “the
father of biochemistry” by the Royal Society of Medicine for
his work on “inborn errors of metabolism.”
In 1897, for the first time, he observed a patient of alkaptonuria,
a condition when the urine turns to dark color when exposed
Figure 4: Sir Archibald Edward Garrod.
Journal of the Practice of Cardiovascular Sciences  ¦  Volume 4 ¦ Issue 2 ¦ May‑August 2018
to air and contained homogentisic acid (HGA). In 1899, he
postulated that alkaptonuria was due to errors in metabolism
pathways but not due to any infections. Later on, Bateson
and Garrod together found that alkaptonuria was common
among congenital parents.[11] In 1902, he has stated in his
publication that “there seems to be little room for doubt that the
peculiarities of the incidence of alkaptonuria and of conditions
which appear in a similar way are best explained by supposing
that, leaving aside exceptional cases in which the character
usually recessive assumes dominance, a peculiarity of the
gametes of both parents is necessary for its production.”[13]
Alkaptonuria is caused due to deficiency of HGA oxidase
deficiency leading to excretion of HGA in urine. In earlier
age of life, there are no symptoms, but in later ages, there are
symptoms of severe ochronotic spondyloarthropathy, ocular
and cutaneous pigmentation, and genitourinary obstruction by
ochronotic calculi.[14]
Phenylalanine
Phenylalanine hydroxylase
Tyrosine
  Tyrosine aminotransferase
4 HydroxyphenylpyruvicAcid
Hydroxyphenylpyruvic Acid Hydroxylase
Homogentisic Acid
Homogentisate 1,2 dioxygenase Alkaptonuria,
Maleylacetoacetic acid
Garrod has stated “… the administration of tyrosine by mouth
to … an alcaptonuric subject … caused a very conspicuous
increase of the output of homogentisic acid…. A corresponding
increase follows an augmented intake of protein food,
and especially of such proteins that are unusually rich in
the aromatic fractions … the tyrosine and phenylalanine
of proteins are the only parent substances of the alcapton
acid (homogentisic acid)…. It will be obvious … that the error
of metabolism, which is the basis of alkaptonuria, is a failure
to deal with the aromatic fractions of proteins ….”[15]
In 1901, Garrod for the first time expressed “inborn errors of
metabolism” in his Croonian Lectures at the Royal College
of Physicians in London[16] and explained that the disease
was inherited in recessive form due to defect in metabolic
pathway. During this time, he did not had much knowledge of
Mendelian genetics, but for the first time, the relation between
biochemical and genetics was coming into light. Finally, in
1902, his observations got published in The Lancet.
Oswald Theodore Avery [Figure 5] was born on October
21, 1877, in Halifax, Canada. His father was a Baptist
minister. At the age of 22, he was graduated with a degree
in humanities.[17] Later in 1900, he decided to enter medical
school and in 1904 he was graduated as a physician from
Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons
in New York.[17] After doing few years of medical practice,
135
[Downloaded free from http://www.j-pcs.org on Monday, September 26, 2022, IP: 118.96.159.50]
Das and Biswas: Gene story
Figure 5: Oswald Theodore Avery.
he found medical research more interesting and joined the
Hoagland Laboratory in Brooklyn as an assistant director
and started working on bacteriology. Most of his patients
had pneumonia or tuberculosis for which there was no
proper treatment.[18] Indeed, his mother also died because
of pneumonia.
Avery published his work on tuberculosis which made Rufus
Cole, the then Director of Rockefeller Institute, interested in it
and in 1913 invited Avery to join Rockefeller Institute where
he started working on Pneumococcus.
In 1928, Frederick Griffith from London reported an amazing
finding where virulent strain of Streptococcus pneumonia even
if dead can transform the nonvirulent strain into virulent strain
and the change was heritable. Neither the heat‑killed virulent
nor nonvirulent strain alone could infect. Avery got interested
in Griffith’s experiment but had some doubts that it may have
happened due to contamination. So, one of his laboratory
members Lionel Alloway repeated the experiment and found
the same results.[18] Soon, they concluded, for transformation
rat was not needed, the nonvirulent can get converted into
virulent even in the test tube. Now, the big question was what
is leading to the transformation.
Later, Avery was joined by Colin MacLeod followed by
Maclyn McCarty. They started creating cultures of virulent
bacteria and then heat killed. This filtrate was then treated with
enzymes to remove proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids. The
remaining filtrate when analyzed was a white fibrous substance
which had the same chemical property as that of DNA.[19]
Further, it was treated with enzymes for removal of protein
and RNA and then infected the nonvirulent bacteria which got
transformed into virulent bacteria. Later, when DNA‑digesting
enzyme was added to it, it lost its property of transformation.
Thus, it became clear that DNA was the substance which
was leading to the transformation among bacteria and thus a
material of genetic inheritance.[19]
Later, in 1944, Avery with Colin MacLeod and Maclyn
McCarty published “Studies on the Chemical Nature of the
136 Journal of the Practice of Cardiovascular Sciences  ¦  Volume 4  ¦  Issue 2  ¦  May‑August 2018
Figure 6: Erwin Chargaff.
Substance Inducing Transformation of the Pneumococcal
Type,” in the Journal of Experimental Medicine. During that
time, many of the scientists did not support Avery’s work.
Many of the scientists still continued believing genes were
proteins. Later, in 1945, Avery received Copley Medel from
the Royal Society of Landon and in 1947 he received Lasker
Award but was never awarded Nobel Prize for his work.
Erwin Chargaff [Figure 6] was born on August 11, 1905,
in Czernowitz, capital of the easternmost province of the
Austro‑Hungarian Empire, Bukovina, to Hermann Chargaff
and Rosa Silberstein Chargaff. In 1928, Chargaff obtained PhD
in analytical chemistry from the University of Vienna followed
by a 2‑year postdoctoral research with R Anderson, an editor
of the Journal of Biological Chemistry at Yale University
where he learned bacterial chemistry.[20] His dissertation was
on organic silver complexes and with the action of iodide
on azide.[20] In the 1930s, he started working on the lipids of
Bacillus Calmette–Guerin and fat and phosphatide fraction of
diphtheria bacteria.[20] With the rise of Nazis in 1933, Chargaff
felt the need of leaving Germany and joined Pasture Institute in
Paris. After working for 2 years in Paris, he went to Columbia
University, United States. For the work of Oswald Avery, he
stated that “Avery gave us the first text of a new language, or
rather he showed us where to look for it. I resolved to search
for this text. Consequently, I decided to relinquish all that we
had been working on or to bring it to a quick conclusion.”
After the work of Avery, the challenge for Erwin Chargaff was
to develop a method to analyze the nitrogenous components
and sugar of DNA in different species. For this, he took
2 years to develop and identify the minute quantity of organic
substance.[20]
In 1950, when Chargaff published his findings on chemistry
of nucleic acid, the tetra nucleotide hypothesis by Phoebus
Levene got disproved. According to the tetra nucleotide
hypothesis, DNA is made up of equal amounts of adenine,
guanine, cytosine, and thymine. According to Chargaff rule,
any double‑stranded DNA, the number of pyrimidine are
[Downloaded free from http://www.j-pcs.org on Monday, September 26, 2022, IP: 118.96.159.50]
Das and Biswas: Gene story
equal to the number of purines but DNA composition among
species varies.[20]
Chargaff’s finding along with Rosalind Franklin’s X‑ray
diffraction showed that in DNA base pairing occurs between
adenine and thymine and between guanine and cytosine.
Later, in 1952, he discussed his work with Watson and Crick
and also about his theory which gave them a hint of DNA’s
structure. In 1953, Watson and Crick published their famous
work on double helix structure of DNA in Nature where they
have cited Chargaff’s paper.
Like Avery, he was also not awarded Nobel Prize, but had been
awarded with Pasture Medal, Carl Neuberg Medal, Charles
Leopold Mayer Prize, Heineken Prize, George Mendel Medal,
and the National Medal of Science.
Rosalind Elsie Franklin [Figure 7] was born on July 25, 1920,
in London to a Jewish family. She attended St. Paul’s School
for girls and later at the age of 18 she enrolled herself to
Newnham Women’s College at Cambridge University where
she studied physics and chemistry. In 1941, she was awarded
the graduation degree. Following in 1942, when the World War
II was on, Franklin joined British Coal Utilization Research
Association (BCURA) where she worked independently on
microstructures of coals and was able to identify and measure
these microstructures for the first time. In 1945, she received
her PhD degree from Cambridge for her work done in BCURA.
For the next 2 years, she worked at State Chemical Laboratory
in Paris where she learned X‑ray diffraction technology.
In 1951, she moved to Biophysics Laboratory at King’s
College, London, where she worked as a research fellow.
Here, she started applying her knowledge of X‑ray diffraction
to study DNA. In May 1952, one of her students, Raymond
Gosling at King’s College, took a photograph of DNA often
known as “Photo 51” [Figure 8], which revealed the double
helix structure of DNA. She stated in a report submitted to
Medical Research Council in February 1952 that “The results
suggest a helical structure…containing probably 2, 3 or 4
Figure 7: Rosalind Elsie Franklin.
Journal of the Practice of Cardiovascular Sciences  ¦  Volume 4 ¦ Issue 2 ¦ May‑August 2018
coaxial nucleic acid chains per helical unit and having the
phosphate groups near the outside.”
Later, in early 1953, one of her colleagues Maurice Wilkins
showed Photo 51 to Watson without her knowledge when
Franklin was planning to leave King’s college and join Birkbeck
College in London. Seeing the picture, Watson later stated “The
instant I saw the picture my mouth fell open and my pulse began
to race. the black cross of reflections which dominated the picture
could arise only from a helical structure. mere inspection of the
X‑ray picture gave several of the vital helical parameters.” This
was the only evidence which Watson and Crick did not have and
this picture helped them conclude the double‑helix structure of
DNA. Finally with this evidence, Watson and Crick published
the double‑helix nature of DNA in Nature in 1953.
In Birkbeck College, she again started working on coal and
closed the work on DNA as the head of King’s college allowed
her to leave on the condition that she would not work on DNA
at Birkberg College. Later, she started working on viruses
where she revealed the hollow center of tobacco mosaic virus
with the help of X‑ray crystallography.
Franklin died at the age of 37 due to ovarian cancer possibly
due to extensive exposer to radiations. In 1962, Watson, Crick,
and Wilkins jointly shared the Nobel Prize, but Franklin’s work
was hardly appreciated. Lewin Sime had later said “Hers is
perhaps one of the most well‑known and shameful instances
of a researcher being robbed of credit.”
Francis Harry Compton Crick, mostly known as Francis
Crick [Figure 9], was born on June 8, 1916, at Northampton,
England.[21] In 1937, he was graduated in physics from University
College, London, and started working under Prof. EN da C.
Andrade, but due to the World War II, he could not carry on his
thesis. During the World War II, he worked as a physicist for
British Admiralty and developed magnetic and acoustic mines
for naval warfare. In 1947, he left Admiralty and started having
interest in life sciences. In the very same year, he started working
in Strangeways Research Laboratory, University of Cambridge,
Figure 8: Photo 51.
137
[Downloaded free from http://www.j-pcs.org on Monday, September 26, 2022, IP: 118.96.159.50]
Das and Biswas: Gene story
as a biologist. In 1950, he again started as a PhD fellow and
obtained his degree in 1954.[21] In 1951, Crick met James Watson
at Cambridge. Both of them together worked on the model of
DNA and in April 25, 1953, got it published in Nature and the
title of the article was ”A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic
Acid.” The order of the author’s name was decided by a coin flip.
James Dewey Watson [Figure 9] was born on April 6, 1928, in
Chicago. In 1947, he was graduated in zoology from Indiana
University in Bloomington and later in 1950, he was awarded
PhD degree. His thesis was on the effect of hard X‑rays on
bacteriophage multiplication. In 1951, he started working on
the structure of DNA along with Crick. Finally, in 1962, Watson,
Crick, and Wilkins were awarded Nobel Prize for the double
helical structure of DNA. With this Nobel Prize, many people
started believing them as discoverers of DNA. The reality
was that the work on DNA started long back when Miescher
discovered nuclin followed by Chargaff and then Rosalind
Franklin photographed crystallized DNA fibers. Thus discovering
the structure of DNA was a part of a huge research work, but
unfortunately, Watson and Crick got a major credit for the work.
Watson and Crick found that the DNA was a double helical
structure which contains long chain of monomer nucleotides.
In their first paper, they have not mentioned about the copying
mechanism of DNA, but in the next article published in
Nature, they have mentioned about the replicating mechanisms
of DNA. By this finding, it could be understood that DNA
replicates itself by separating itself into two strands and then
working as templates for each other. Watson has stated in his
book that after the finding, Crick has announced that “we had
found the secret of life.”[22]
Immediately after publication, the article was not cited
frequently, but came into recognition only when it was
understood by Meselson, Kornberg, and many other scientists
that protein synthesis and DNA had some relation.
Later, in the 1990s, Watson helped in establishing human
genome project.
Figure 9: Francis Crick and James Watson, walking along the Backs,
Cambridge, England, 1953.
138 Journal of the Practice of Cardiovascular Sciences  ¦  Volume 4  ¦  Issue 2  ¦  May‑August 2018
Conclusion
Most of the credits for the discoveries of DNA have been given
to Watson and Crick, but their work was directly dependent on
the work of lots of scientists before them. All these researches
together helped us to know a great deal about genetic structure
and finally understanding the human genome, which has helped
us to decode the reason of a number of diseases.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Desmond A, Darwin JM, Kingsland SE. The life of a tormented
evolutionist. Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 1994;68:533.
2. Darwin C. On the origins of species by means of natural selection.
London: Murray. 1859;247:1859.
3. Gorunescu F. Data Mining: Concepts, Models and Techniques. Springer
Science & Business Media; 2011.
4. Sturtevant AH. History of Genetics. New York, London: Harper & Row;
1965.
5. Bateson W. Heredity and variation in modern lights. Darwin and modern
science. 1909.
6. Griffiths AJ, Wessler SR, Lewontin RC, Gelbart WM, Suzuki DT,
Miller JH. An introduction to genetic analysis. Macmillan; 2005.
7. Miescher F. Die histochemischen und physiologischen Arbeiten von
Friedrich Miescher. Vogel; 1897.
8. Dahm R. Discovering DNA: Friedrich Miescher and the early years of
nucleic acid research. Hum Genet 2008;122:565‑81.
9. Perutz M. Hoppe‑Seyler, stokes and haemoglobin. Biol Chem Hoppe
Seyler 1995;376:449‑50.
10. Miescher F. Letter I; to Wilhelm His; Tübingen, February 26th, 1869.
In: His W, et al., editors. Die Histochemischen und Physiologischen
Arbeiten. Ausdem Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel von F. Miescher.
Vol. 1. Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel; 1869. p. 33‑8.
11. Prasad C, Galbraith PA. Sir Archibald Garrod and alkaptonuria ‑›story
of metabolic genetics›. Clin Genet 2005;68:199‑203.
12. Loriaux L. A biographical history of endocrinology. John Wiley & Sons;
2016.
13. Garrod A. The incidence of alkaptonuria: A study in chemical
individuality. Lancet 1902;160:1616‑20.
14. Erek E, Casselman FR, Vanermen H. Cardiac ochronosis: Valvular heart
disease with dark green discoloration of the leaflets. Tex Heart Inst J
2004;31:445‑7.
15. Garrod AE. Inborn Errors of Metabolism. 2nd ed. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press; 1923.
16. Rosenberg LE. Legacies of Garrod’s brilliance. One hundred years – And
counting. J Inherit Metab Dis 2008;31:574‑9.
17. Dochez AR. Oswald Theodore Avery. Biogr Mem 1958;32:31.
18. Ghose T. Oswald Avery: The professor, DNA, and the Nobel Prize that
eluded him. Can Bull Med Hist 2004;21:135‑44.
19. Avery OT, Macleod CM, McCarty M. Studies on the chemical
nature of the substance inducing transformation of pneumococcal
types: Induction of transformation by a deoxyribonucleic acid
fraction isolated from pneumococcus Type III. J Exp Med 1944;
79:137‑58.
20. Kresge N, Simoni RD, Hill RL. Chargaff’s rules: The work of Erwin
Chargaff. J Biol Chem 2005;280:e21.
21. Muller H. From Nobel Lectures, Physiology or Medicine, 1942‑1962.
22. Chargaff E. Preface to a grammar of biology. A hundred years of nucleic
acid research. Science 1971;172:637‑42.