DOCSLIB.ORG

Alfred Henry Sturtevant

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alfred Henry Sturtevant NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES A LFRED HENRY S TURTEVANT 1891—1970 A Biographical Memoir by E D WA R D B . L E W IS Any opinions expressed in this memoir are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences. Biographical Memoir COPYRIGHT 1998 NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS WASHINGTON D.C. CourtesyoftheInstituteArchives,CaliforniaInstitueofTechnology,Pasadena ALFREDHENRYSTURTEVANT November21,1891—April5,1970 BYEDWARDB.LEWIS TURTEVANTWASTHEyoungestofsixchildrenofAlfred SHenrySturtevantandHarrietEvelynMorse.Hisgrand- fatherJulianM.SturtevantgraduatedfromYaleDivinity SchoolandwasafounderandlaterpresidentofIllinois College.Sturtevant’sfathertaughtmathematicsforatime atIllinoisCollegebutsubsequentlyturnedtofarming,first inIllinoisandlaterinsouthernAlabama,wherethefamily movedwhenSturtevantwasseven.Hisearlyeducationwas inAlabamainaone-roomcountryschool,butforthelast threeyearsofhighschoolhewenttoapublicschoolin Mobile. Inthefallof1908SturtevantenteredColumbiaUniver- sity.Thechoice,acrucialone,wasmadebecauseSturtevant’s oldestbrother,Edgar,wasthenteachingLatinandGreek atBarnardCollege;Edgarandhiswifemadeitpossible forSturtevanttoattendtheuniversitybytakinghiminto theirhome.SturtevantwasgreatlyinfluencedbyEdgar, fromwhomhelearnedtheaimsandstandardsofscholar- shipandresearch. AsaboySturtevanthaddrawnupthepedigreesofhis father’shorsesandofhisownfamily.Hepursuedthisinter- ReprintedwithpermissionfromDictionaryofScientificBiography,vol.13,pp.133-38. NewYork:Chas.Scribner’sSons,1976. 3 4 BIOGRAPHICALMEMOIRS estasahobbywhilehewasatColumbia.Edgarencouraged himtoreadworksonheredityandtolearnmore aboutthemeaningofpedigrees.AsaresultSturtevant readabookonMendelismbyPunnettthatgreatlystimu- latedhisinterest,sincehesawhowMendel’sprinciples couldbeusedtoexplainthepatternofinheritanceof certaincoatcolorsinhorses.EdgarsuggestedthatSturtevant workoutthegeneticrelationships,writeanaccountofhis findings,andsubmitittoThomasHuntMorgan,whoheld thechairofexperimentalzoologyatColumbiaandfrom whomSturtevanthadalreadytakenacourse.Morganclearly wasimpressed,sincehenotonlyencouragedSturtevantto publishtheaccount,whichappearedinBiologicalBulletin in1910,butalso,inthefallofthatyear,gaveSturtevanta deskinhislaboratory,whichcametobeknownasthe“fly room.”Onlyafewmonthsbefore,Morganhadfoundthe firstwhite-eyedmutantinDrosophilaandhadworkedout theprinciplesofsexlinkage. AftercompletinghisdoctoralworkwithMorganin1914, SturtevantremainedatColumbiaasaresearchinvestiga- torfortheCarnegieInstitutionofWashington.Hewasa memberofaresearchteamthatMorganhadassembleda fewyearsearlierandthatconsistedprincipallyoftwoother studentsofMorgan’s,C.B.BridgesandH.J.Muller.The “flyroom”inwhichtheyconductedalloftheirexperi- mentswasonlysixteenbytwenty-threefeet,andattimes asmanyaseightpeoplehaddesksinit.Accordingto Sturtevant,theatmospherewasoneofhighexcitement, eachnewideabeingfreelyputforthanddebated.Morgan, Bridges,andSturtevantremainedatColumbiauntil1928; Mullerleftthegroupin1921totakeapositionatthe UniversityofTexas. In1922SturtevantmarriedPhoebeCurtisReed;andin thesameyeartheymadetheirfirsttriptoEurope,visiting ALFREDHENRYSTURTEVANT 5 museumsandlaboratoriesinEngland,Norway,Sweden, andHolland.Theyhadthreechildren. In1928SturtevantmovedtoPasadenatobecomepro- fessorofgeneticsinthenewdivisionofbiologythatMor- ganhadestablishedinthatyearattheCaliforniaInstitute ofTechnology.Muchofthesamestimulatingatmosphere andunpretentiouswayofconductingsciencethatMorgan andhisstudentshadpracticedatColumbiawastransferred tothenewKerckhoffLaboratoryatCaltech.Sturtevant becametheacknowledgedandnaturalleaderofthenew geneticsgroupestablishedthere.Hemaintainedanactive researchprograminwhichheoftencollaboratedwithother membersofthegeneticsstaff,includingGeorgeW.Beadle, TheodosiusDobzhansky,SterlingEmerson,andJackSchultz. Hegavelecturesinthegeneralbiologycourseandtaught elementaryandadvancedcoursesingeneticsand,onocca- sion,acourseinentomology.HeremainedatCaltechuntil hisdeathexceptforayearinEnglandandGermanyin 1932,asvisitingprofessoroftheCarnegieEndowmentfor InternationalPeace,andshorterperiodswhenheheldvis- itingprofessorshipsatanumberofAmericanuniversities. Hereceivedmanyhonors,includingtheNationalMedal ofSciencein1968. Inadditiontohisprincipalpublicationsdealingwith thegeneticsandtaxonomyofDrosophila,Sturtevantcon- tributedpapersonthegeneticsofhorses,fowl,mice,moths, snails,iris,andespeciallytheeveningprimroses(Oenothera). Althoughhischiefcontributionsareingenetics,hewas alsoaleadingauthorityonthetaxonomyofseveralgroups ofDiptera,especiallythegenusDrosophila,ofwhichhe describedmanynewspecies.Hewasmuchinterestedin thesocialinsectsandpublishedseveralpapersonthebe- haviorofants. 6 BIOGRAPHICALMEMOIRS Sturtevanthadaprodigiousmemoryandtrulyencyclo- pedicinterests.Hehadanaturalbentformathematicsbut littleformaltraininginit.Heespeciallyenjoyed,andwas expertatsolving,allkindsofpuzzles,especiallythosein- volvinggeometricalsituations.Forhimscientificresearch wasanexcitingandrewardingactivitynotunlikepuzzle- solving.acommonthemeofhisinvestigationswasanef- forttoanalyzeandexplainexceptionstoestablishedprin- ciples. Sturtevantknewhowtodesignandexecutesimple,el- egantexperiments,describingtheresultsinconcise,lucid prose.Hesethighstandardsforhisownresearchand expectedotherstodothesame. Sturtevant’sdiscoveriesoftheprincipleofgenemap- ping,ofthefirstreparablegenedefect,oftheprinciple underlyingfatemapping,ofthephenomenaofunequal crossing-over,andofpositioneffectwereperhapshisgreatest scientificachievements.Theaccountoftheseandsomeof hisothermajorcontributionstoscienceisarrangedin approximatechronologicalorder. Mendelhadfoundthatallofthehereditaryfactorswith whichheworkedassortedindependentlyofoneanotherat thetimeofgameteformation.Exceptionstothissecond Mendelianlawbegantoaccumulatein1900-1909.Morgan wasthefirsttoprovideasatisfactoryexplanationforsuch exceptionsintermsofahypothesis,whichassumesthat genestendingtoremaintogetherinpassingfromonegen- erationtothenextmustbelocatedinthesamechromo- some.Hefurtherpostulatedthattheextenttowhichsuch linkedgenesrecombineatmeiosisisarelativemeasureof theirphysicaldistance. Sturtevantintroducedtheconceptthatthefrequencyof crossing-overbetweentwogenesfurnishesanindexoftheir distanceonalineargeneticmap.Heproposedthat1per- ALFREDHENRYSTURTEVANT 7 centofcrossing-overbetakenasequaltoonemapunit.He thenreasonedthatifthedistancebetweentwogenes,A andB,isequaltoxmapunitsandthedistancebetweenB andathirdgene,C,isequaltoymapunits,thenthedis- tancebetweenAandCwillbex+yifBisthemiddlegene; x–yifCisthemiddlegene,andy–xifAisthemiddle gene.ThegermofthisideaoccurredtoSturtevantincon- versationwithMorgan.InhisHistoryofGenetics,Sturtevant recordedthathe“wenthome,andspentmostofthenight (totheneglectofmyundergraduatehomework)inpro- ducingthefirstchromosomemap,includingthelinkedgenes, y,w,v,m,andr,inthatorder,andapproximatelytherela- tivespacing,astheystillappearonthestandardmaps”(p. 47). Sturtevantdevisedacrucialtestoftheprinciplesofmap- pinggenesbyconstructingcrossesinwhichallthreegenes weresegregatingsimultaneously.Intheprogenyofsuch “three-factor”crosses,Sturtevantdiscoveredthatdouble crossing-overcanoccurandthatitsfrequencyisequalto, orlessthan,theproductofthetwosinglecrossing-over frequencies.Conversely,thefrequencyofdoublecrossing- overcanbeusedtodeducetheorderofthethreegenes. Sturtevantshowedthattheorderobtainedfromtwo-factor crosseswasfullyconfirmedandthatthethree-factorcrosses providedamorepowerfulmethodoforderingandmap- pinggenesthandidtwo-factorcrosses.Hepublishedthese findingsin1913.Hisprinciplesandmethodsofchromo- somemappinghaveenabledgeneticiststomapthechro- mosomesofawidevarietyofhigherorganisms,including man. Sturtevantwasasmuchconcernedwiththeroleofgenes indevelopmentaswiththelawsgoverningtheirtransmis- sionfromonegenerationtothenext.In1915hepub- lishedanaccountofthesexualbehaviorofDrosophilathat 8 BIOGRAPHICALMEMOIRS includedastudyofsexualselectionbasedontheuseof specificmutantgenesthatalteredtheeyecolororbody colorofthefly.Thisworkwastheforerunnerofanexten- sivelineofresearchbyothersandconstitutedoneofthe firstexamplesoftheuseofspecificmutantgenestodis- sectthebehaviorofanorganism. Oneofthemoreconspicuousrolesthatgenesplayin developmentistheircontroloftheprocessesofsexual differentiation.In1919Sturtevantreportedthefirstcase inwhichintersexualitycouldbeshowntoresultfromthe presenceofspecificrecessivegenes.Yearslaterhefounda similartypeofgenethatresultedinthevirtuallycomplete transformationoffemalesintomales.Mutantsofstillother “sexgenes”havebeenfoundinDrosophilaandinmany otherorganisms,includingman.Asaresult,sexhascome tobeviewedasacomplextraitcontrolledbyanumberof differentgenes,mutantsofwhichcanbeexpectedtopro- ducevariousgradesofintersexuality. Sturtevantpioneeredinprovidingexperimentalap- proachestoacentralprobleminbiology—howgenespro- ducetheireffects.Animportantbreak-throughcamein 1920,withhisdiscoveryofthefirstreparablegenedefect. InstudyinggynandromorphsofDrosophilainwhichthere wassomaticmosaicismforthevermilioneye-colormutant, henoticedthattheeyesdevelopedthedarkredcolorof thewildtypeinsteadofthebrightredcolorofthevermil- ionmutant,evenwhentheeyecouldbeshowntobege- neticallyvermilion.Evidently,vermilioneyetissuelacked somesubstancethatcouldbesuppliedbygenetically nonvermiliontissuefromanotherportionofthebody.As G.W.Beadlepointedout,muchofmodernbiochemical geneticsstemsdirectlyfromthisearlywork. Sturtevanthadshownin1913thatforeachofthemajor chromosomesofDrosophilathereisacorrespondinglink- ALFREDHENRYSTURTEVANT 9 agemap.Heandothershadnoticed,however,thatexces-
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Francois Jacob Memorial
    RETROSPECTIVE RETROSPECTIVE Francois Jacob memorial Arthur B. Pardee1 Department of Adult Oncology, Dana-Farber Institute, Boston, MA 02115 Dr. Francois Jacob is one of a handful of the DNA would integrate into the bacterial chro- 20th century’smostdistinguishedlifescien- mosome and remain dormant or, at other tists. His research with Dr. Jacques Monod, times, would kill the cell. like that of Watson and Crick, provided the Jacob’s next major contribution, in collab- foundations for understanding mechanisms oration with Dr. Jacques Monod, was to in- of genetic regulation of life processes such vestigate how a gene is regulated. Remark- as cell differentiation and defects in diseases. ably, native E. coli synthesize β-galactosidase Jacob joined the College de France in 1964 only when lactose is available. Some mutated and shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology bacteria can make the enzyme in the absence or Medicine 1965 with Jacques Monod of inducer. Monod’s initial idea was that and Andre Lwoff. He was elected to the these constitutive bacteria activate the gene National Academy of Sciences (NAS) USA by synthesizing an intracellular lactose-like in 1969. inducer molecule. Jacob was born in 1920 in a French Jewish To investigate this model, interrupted family; his grandfather was a four-star gen- mating was applied to bring the β-galactosi- eral. He began to study medicine before dase gene of a donor bacterium into a consti- World War II, in which he served as a mil- tutive receptor. According to the induction itary officer in the Free French Army and was model, the mated cell should produce en- badly wounded in an air raid.
    [Show full text]
  • Quiet Debut'' of the Double Helix: a Bibliometric and Methodological
    Journal of the History of Biology Ó Springer 2009 DOI 10.1007/s10739-009-9183-2 Revisiting the ‘‘Quiet Debut’’ of the Double Helix: A Bibliometric and Methodological note on the ‘‘Impact’’ of Scientific Publications YVES GINGRAS De´partement d’histoire Universite´ du Que´bec a` Montre´al C.P. 8888, Suc. Centre-Ville Montreal, QC H3C-3P8 Canada E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. The object of this paper is two-fold: first, to show that contrary to what seem to have become a widely accepted view among historians of biology, the famous 1953 first Nature paper of Watson and Crick on the structure of DNA was widely cited – as compared to the average paper of the time – on a continuous basis from the very year of its publication and over the period 1953–1970 and that the citations came from a wide array of scientific journals. A systematic analysis of the bibliometric data thus shows that Watson’s and Crick’s paper did in fact have immediate and long term impact if we define ‘‘impact’’ in terms of comparative citations with other papers of the time. In this precise sense it did not fall into ‘‘relative oblivion’’ in the scientific community. The second aim of this paper is to show, using the case of the reception of the Watson–Crick and Jacob–Monod papers as concrete examples, how large scale bibliometric data can be used in a sophisticated manner to provide information about the dynamic of the scientific field as a whole instead of limiting the analysis to a few major actors and generalizing the result to the whole community without further ado.
    [Show full text]
  • MCDB 5220 Methods and Logics April 21 2015 Marcelo Bassalo
    Cracking the Genetic Code MCDB 5220 Methods and Logics April 21 2015 Marcelo Bassalo The DNA Saga… so far Important contributions for cracking the genetic code: • The “transforming principle” (1928) Frederick Griffith The DNA Saga… so far Important contributions for cracking the genetic code: • The “transforming principle” (1928) • The nature of the transforming principle: DNA (1944 - 1952) Oswald Avery Alfred Hershey Martha Chase The DNA Saga… so far Important contributions for cracking the genetic code: • The “transforming principle” (1928) • The nature of the transforming principle: DNA (1944 - 1952) • X-ray diffraction and the structure of proteins (1951) Linus Carl Pauling The DNA Saga… so far Important contributions for cracking the genetic code: • The “transforming principle” (1928) • The nature of the transforming principle: DNA (1944 - 1952) • X-ray diffraction and the structure of proteins (1951) • The structure of DNA (1953) James Watson and Francis Crick The DNA Saga… so far Important contributions for cracking the genetic code: • The “transforming principle” (1928) • The nature of the transforming principle: DNA (1944 - 1952) • X-ray diffraction and the structure of proteins (1951) • The structure of DNA (1953) How is DNA (4 nucleotides) the genetic material while proteins (20 amino acids) are the building blocks? ? DNA Protein ? The Coding Craze ? DNA Protein What was already known? • DNA resides inside the nucleus - DNA is not the carrier • Protein synthesis occur in the cytoplasm through ribosomes {• Only RNA is associated with ribosomes (no DNA) - rRNA is not the carrier { • Ribosomal RNA (rRNA) was a homogeneous population The “messenger RNA” hypothesis François Jacob Jacques Monod The Coding Craze ? DNA RNA Protein RNA Tie Club Table from Wikipedia The Coding Craze Who won the race Marshall Nirenberg J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Eighth Day of Creation”: Looking Back Across 40 Years to the Birth of Molecular Biology and the Roots of Modern Cell Biology
    “The Eighth Day of Creation”: looking back across 40 years to the birth of molecular biology and the roots of modern cell biology Mark Peifer1 1 Department of Biology and Curriculum in Genetics and Molecular Biology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB#3280, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3280, USA * To whom correspondence should be addressed Email: [email protected] Phone: (919) 962-2272 1 Forty years ago, Horace Judson’s “The Eight Day of Creation” was published, a book vividly recounting the foundations of modern biology, the molecular biology revolution. This book inspired many in my generation. The anniversary provides a chance for a new generation to take a look back, to see how science has changed and hasn’t changed. Many central players in the book, including Sydney Brenner, Seymour Benzer and Francois Jacob, would go on to be among the founders of modern cell, developmental, and neurobiology. These players come alive via their own words, as complex individuals, both heroes and anti-heroes. The technologies and experimental approaches they pioneered, ranging from cell fractionation to immunoprecipitation to structural biology, and the multidisciplinary approaches they took continue to power and inspire our work today. In the process, Judson brings out of the shadows the central roles played by women in many of the era’s discoveries. He provides us with a vision of how science and scientists have changed, of how many things about our endeavor never change, and how some new ideas are perhaps not as new as we’d like to think. 2 In 1979 Horace Judson completed a ten-year project about cell and molecular biology’s foundations, unveiling “The Eighth Day of Creation”, a book I view as one of the most masterful evocations of a scientific revolution (Judson, 1979).
    [Show full text]
  • In 1953 in England James Watson and Francis Crick Discovered the Structure of DNA in the Now-Famous Scientific Narrative Known As the “Race Towards the Double Helix”
    THE NARRATIVES OF SCIENCE: LITERARY THEORY AND DISCOVERY IN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY PRIYA VENKATESAN In 1953 in England James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA in the now-famous scientific narrative known as the “race towards the double helix”. Meanwhile in France, Roland Barthes published his first book, Writing Degree Zero, on literary theory, which became the intellectual precursor for the new human sciences that were developing based on Saussurean linguistics. The discovery by Watson and Crick of the double helix marked a definitive turning point in the development of the life sciences, paving the way for the articulation of the genetic code and the emergence of molecular biology. The publication by Barthes was no less significant, since it served as an exemplar for elucidating how literary narratives are structured and for formulating how textual material is constructed. As Françoise Dosse notes, Writing Degree Zero “received unanimous acclaim and quickly became a symptom of new literary demands, a break with tradition”.1 Both the work of Roland Barthes and Watson and Crick served as paradigms in their respective fields. Semiotics, the field of textual analysis as developed by Barthes in Writing Degree Zero, offered a new direction in the structuring of narrative whereby each distinct unit in a story formed a “code” or “isotopy” that categorizes the formal elements of the story. The historical concurrence of the discovery of the double helix and the publication of Writing Degree Zero may be mere coincidence, but this essay is an exploration of the intellectual influence that both events may have had on each other, since both the discovery of the double helix and Barthes’ publication gave expression to the new forms of knowledge 1 Françoise Dosse, History of Structuralism: The Rising Sign, 1945-1966, trans.
    [Show full text]
  • Cover June 2011
    z NOBEL LAUREATES IN Qui DNA RESEARCH n u SANGRAM KESHARI LENKA & CHINMOYEE MAHARANA F 1. Who got the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1933) for discovering the famous concept that says chromosomes carry genes? a. Gregor Johann Mendel b. Thomas Hunt Morgan c. Aristotle d. Charles Darwin 5. Name the Nobel laureate (1959) for his discovery of the mechanisms in the biological 2. The concept of Mutations synthesis of ribonucleic acid and are changes in genetic deoxyribonucleic acid? information” awarded him a. Arthur Kornberg b. Har Gobind Khorana the Nobel Prize in 1946: c. Roger D. Kornberg d. James D. Watson a. Hermann Muller b. M.F. Perutz c. James D. Watson 6. Discovery of the DNA double helix fetched them d. Har Gobind Khorana the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1962). a. Francis Crick, James Watson, Rosalind Elsie Franklin b. Francis Crick, James Watson and Maurice Willkins c. James Watson, Maurice Willkins, Rosalind Elsie Franklin 3. Identify the discoverer and d. Maurice Willkins, Rosalind Elsie Franklin and Francis Crick Nobel laureate of 1958 who found DNA in bacteria and viruses. a. Louis Pasteur b. Alexander Fleming c. Joshua Lederberg d. Roger D. Kornberg 4. A direct link between genes and enzymatic reactions, known as the famous “one gene, one enzyme” hypothesis, was put forth by these 7. They developed the theory of genetic regulatory scientists who shared the Nobel Prize in mechanisms, showing how, on a molecular level, Physiology or Medicine, 1958. certain genes are activated and suppressed. Name a. George Wells Beadle and Edward Lawrie Tatum these famous Nobel laureates of 1965.
    [Show full text]
  • Balcomk41251.Pdf (558.9Kb)
    Copyright by Karen Suzanne Balcom 2005 The Dissertation Committee for Karen Suzanne Balcom Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Discovery and Information Use Patterns of Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine Committee: E. Glynn Harmon, Supervisor Julie Hallmark Billie Grace Herring James D. Legler Brooke E. Sheldon Discovery and Information Use Patterns of Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine by Karen Suzanne Balcom, B.A., M.L.S. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin August, 2005 Dedication I dedicate this dissertation to my first teachers: my father, George Sheldon Balcom, who passed away before this task was begun, and to my mother, Marian Dyer Balcom, who passed away before it was completed. I also dedicate it to my dissertation committee members: Drs. Billie Grace Herring, Brooke Sheldon, Julie Hallmark and to my supervisor, Dr. Glynn Harmon. They were all teachers, mentors, and friends who lifted me up when I was down. Acknowledgements I would first like to thank my committee: Julie Hallmark, Billie Grace Herring, Jim Legler, M.D., Brooke E. Sheldon, and Glynn Harmon for their encouragement, patience and support during the nine years that this investigation was a work in progress. I could not have had a better committee. They are my enduring friends and I hope I prove worthy of the faith they have always showed in me. I am grateful to Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • ERIC F. WIESCHAUS Investigator Howard Hughes Medical Institute
    ERIC F. WIESCHAUS Investigator Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Research Laboratories Professor, Department of Molecular Biology Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 Telephone # (609) 258-5383 Fax # (609) 258-1547 [email protected] Date of Birth: June 8, 1947 EDUCATION University of Notre Dame, Indiana B.S. (Biology) 1969 Yale University Ph.D (Walter Gehring) 1974 University of Zurich, Switzerland Postdoctoral training (Rolf Nöthiger) 1975 ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT 1975-1978 Postdoctoral Fellow, Zoologisches Institut der Universität Zurich, with Dr. Rolf Nöthiger. 1976 EMBO short-term fellowship to the laboratory of Mme. Gans, Laboratoire de Genetique Moleculaire, C.N.R.S., Gif-sur-Yvette, France. 1977 Visiting Researcher, laboratory of Peter Bryant, Center of Pathobiology, U. of CA, Irvine. 1978-1981 Group Leader, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, West Germany. 1981-1983 Assistant Professor of Biology, Princeton University. 1983-1987 Associate Professor of Biology, Princeton University. 1987-Present Professor, Department of Molecular Biology, Princeton University. 1997-Present Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute. 1997-Present Adjunct Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. HONORS, AWARDS and PROFESSIONAL RECOGNITION 1969 Graduated Magna cum laude, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, Indiana 1974 John Spangler Niclaus Prize for the outstanding dissertation, Yale University 1989-1999 NIHHD Merit Award 1993 Appointed Squibb Professor
    [Show full text]
  • Nobel Laureates in Physiology Or Medicine
    All Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine 1901 Emil A. von Behring Germany ”for his work on serum therapy, especially its application against diphtheria, by which he has opened a new road in the domain of medical science and thereby placed in the hands of the physician a victorious weapon against illness and deaths” 1902 Sir Ronald Ross Great Britain ”for his work on malaria, by which he has shown how it enters the organism and thereby has laid the foundation for successful research on this disease and methods of combating it” 1903 Niels R. Finsen Denmark ”in recognition of his contribution to the treatment of diseases, especially lupus vulgaris, with concentrated light radiation, whereby he has opened a new avenue for medical science” 1904 Ivan P. Pavlov Russia ”in recognition of his work on the physiology of digestion, through which knowledge on vital aspects of the subject has been transformed and enlarged” 1905 Robert Koch Germany ”for his investigations and discoveries in relation to tuberculosis” 1906 Camillo Golgi Italy "in recognition of their work on the structure of the nervous system" Santiago Ramon y Cajal Spain 1907 Charles L. A. Laveran France "in recognition of his work on the role played by protozoa in causing diseases" 1908 Paul Ehrlich Germany "in recognition of their work on immunity" Elie Metchniko France 1909 Emil Theodor Kocher Switzerland "for his work on the physiology, pathology and surgery of the thyroid gland" 1910 Albrecht Kossel Germany "in recognition of the contributions to our knowledge of cell chemistry made through his work on proteins, including the nucleic substances" 1911 Allvar Gullstrand Sweden "for his work on the dioptrics of the eye" 1912 Alexis Carrel France "in recognition of his work on vascular suture and the transplantation of blood vessels and organs" 1913 Charles R.
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline Code Dnai Site Guide
    DNAi Site Guide 1 DNAi Site Guide Timeline Pre 1920’s Johann Gregor Mendel, Friedrich Miescher, Carl Erich Correns, Hugo De Vries, Erich Von Tschermak- Seysenegg, Thomas Hunt Morgan 1920-49 Hermann Muller, Barbara McClintock, George Wells Beadle, Edward Lawrie Tatum, Joshua Lederberg, Oswald Theodore Avery 1950-54 Erwin Chargaff, Rosalind Elsie Franklin, Martha Chase, Alfred Day Hershey, Linus Pauling, James Dewey Watson, Francis Harry Compton Crick, Seymour Benzer 1955-59 Francis Harry Compton Crick, Paul Charles Zamecnik, Mahlon Hoagland, Matthew Stanley Meselson, Franklin William Stahl, Arthur Kornberg 1960’s Sydney Brenner, Marshall Warren Nirenberg, François Jacob, Jacques Lucien Monod, Roy John Britten 1970’s David Baltimore, Howard Martin Temin, Stanley Norman Cohen, Herbert W. Boyer, Richard John Roberts, Phillip Allen Sharp, Roger Kornberg, Frederick Sanger 1980’s Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard, Eric Francis Wieschaus, Kary Mullis, Thomas Robert Cech, Sidney Altman, Mario Renato Capecchi 1990-2000 Mary-Claire King, Stephen P.A. Fodor, Patrick Henry Brown, John Craig Venter Francis Collins, John Sulston Code Finding the structure Problem What is the structure of DNA? DNAi Site Guide 2 Players Erwin Chargaff, Rosalind Franklin, Linus Pauling, James Watson and Francis Crick, Maurice Wilkins Pieces of the puzzle Wilkins' X-ray, Pauling's triple helix, Franklin's X-ray, Watson's base pairing, Chargaff's ratios Putting it together DNA is a double-stranded helix. Copying the code Problem How is DNA copied? Players James Watson and Francis Crick, Sydney Brenner, François Jacob, Matthew Meselson, Arthur Kornberg Pieces of the puzzle The Central Dogma, Semi-conservative replication Models of DNA replication, The RNA experiment, DNA synthesis Putting it together DNA is used as a template for copying information.
    [Show full text]
  • Fifty Years of Neuropsychopharmacology
    Z. Lacković Fifty years of neuropsychopharmacology FIFTY YEARS OF NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY Zdravko Lacković Laboratory of Molecular Neuropsihopharmacology, Department of Pharmacology & Croatian Brain Research Institute, University of Zagreb School of Medicine In the fi fty years since the fi rst Pula congress a lot of methodology of reverse pharmacology – instead has changed in neuropsychopharmacology. Granted, of a classic approach, nowadays receptors are more the major groups of psychoactive drugs had already and more often synthesized from the human genome been discovered: neuroleptics, antidepressants, ben- followed by search for their endogenous ligands and zodiazepine anxiolitics, psychostimulants... Neu- possibilities of their pharmacological manipulation. rology was using the basic antiepileptics while, for Th rough this, we now have orexines (hypocretins) example, the treatments for vascular and immuno- as key neurotransmitters of wakefulness. By reverse logical diseases were more expectative. At the time pharmacology we have discovered such receptors as of the fi rst Pula congress in 1960 we had only just the new opioid receptor ORL1 and its endogenous discovered that myasthenia gravis is an autoimmune ligand, nociceptin and fi nally, after several decades disease. It is also the year when dopamine defi ciency of diff erent assumptions, the prolactin-stimulating in the brain of Parkinsonian patients was discovered, a factor. What is especially intriguing and motivating fi nding which was to revolutionize understanding and is the fact that there are still hundreds of G-protein treatment of this disease. Th e last fi fty years have also receptors, nuclear receptors and synaptic receptors seen a proliferation of approaches to therapy and the waiting for researchers to discover their function and success of these medical fi elds has grown considerably.
    [Show full text]
  • Choosing the Problem
    Is the Blueprint the Building? Studies on the Use of Social Representation Theory, Information Theory, Folkscience, Metaphor and Language to Understand Student Comprehension of Metaphors in the Domain of Gene Expression DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Andrea Michele Graytock Graduate Program in Education The Ohio State University 2011 Dissertation Committee: David L. Haury, Advisor Antoinette Errante Laura Wagner Copyrighted by Andrea Michele Graytock 2011 Abstract Learning about gene expression can be hampered by the multiple steps of the process as well as the technical terms used to represent the process. Technical terms and explanations are based on the metaphors of language, code, containers, gift-giving, computer programs, and construction. The effective use of metaphor depends on the background of the audience and their familiarity with base concepts of the metaphors in use. Inappropriate metaphors also interfere with new information projection from the metaphor to new information. A series of three qualitative studies was carried out to determine non-science students‘ interpretation of commonly-used theory constitutive metaphors. For Study 1students were asked to interpret the metaphors DNA IS A LANGUAGE, DNA IS A CODE, DNA IS A CARRIER OF INFORMATION, and DNA IS A COMPUTER PROGRAM. Using Corbin & Strauss‘s Grounded Theory, similar action/interactional strategies from interpretations of participants were grouped to form concepts and consequences of those concepts were noted. Concepts that reflected a similar theme were combined to form categories. These categories reflected the conceptual understanding of each metaphor.
    [Show full text]