Studies on the chemical nature of the substance inducing transformation of pneumococcal types. Inductions of transformation by a desoxyribonucleic acid fraction isolated from pneumococcus type III.
Studies on the chemical nature of the substance inducing transformation of pneumococcal types. Inductions of transformation by a desoxyribonucleic acid fraction isolated from pneumococcus type III.
复制标题
关于诱导肺炎球菌类型转化的物质化学性质的研究。从III型肺炎球菌分离出的脱氧核糖核酸馏分转化的诱导。
DOI：
10.1084/jem.149.2.297
复制
发表时间：
1979-02-01
影响因子：
15.3
通讯作者：
McCarty, M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Avery, O T;MacLeod, C M;McCarty, M
《实验医学杂志》庆祝其革命性科学发现发表35周年。1944年2月1日，Oswald T.作者：Colin M.麦克劳德和麦克林麦卡蒂报道了”肺炎球菌转化因子“的化学组成。“蛋白质和多糖的生化特异性早已确立，关于转化因子的大多数赌注都在这些类别上。但是提纯过程已经把这些都筛掉了，剩下的就是DNA！自从1871年米歇尔发现核酸以来，核酸在细胞经济中发挥着重要作用，这一点从未受到怀疑。然而，开发一种用于核酸功能作用的生物测定法花了73年时间。一些生物学家甚至对基因的功能丧失了希望，除非在一个内在的不可分析的整体复合体的背景下。此外，福伯斯·莱文（Phoebus AT Levene）的化学研究指出了一种单调的结构同质性，这显然与核酸的特异性（今天我们称之为信息能力）不一致。难怪那个时代的大多数生物学家含糊地说”核蛋白”是最有可能的基因组成。埃弗里、麦克劳德和麦卡蒂在论文中对遗传学的引用必须非常谨慎：无论他们隐瞒了什么猜测，其他人都会迅速提供。令人沮丧的是，幸存下来的文件很少-
Tins xssuE oF The Journal of Experimental Medicine celebrates the 35th anniversary of its publication of a revolutionary scientific discovery. On February 1, 1944 Oswald T. Avery, Colin M. MacLeod, and Maclyn McCarty reported on the chemical composition of the" pneumococcus transforming factor." Biochemical specificity had long been established for proteins and for polysaccharides, and most of the bets about the transforming factor had been on these categories. But the purification process had winnowed those away, and what was left was DNA! That nucleic acids played a substantial role in the economy of the cell was never in doubt since their discovery by Miescher in 1871. However, it took 73 years to develop a biological assay for the functional role of a nucleic acid. Some biologists even lost hope that genes could function except in the context of an inherently unanalyzable holistic complex. Furthermore, the chemical studies of Phoebus AT Levene pointed to a monotonous homogeneity of structure, manifestly inconsistent with the specificity (today we would say informational capacity) of nucleic acids. No wonder that most biologists of that era spoke vaguely of" nucleoproteins" as the most likely composition of genes. Avery, MacLeod, and McCarty needed to make the most cautious reference to genetics in their paper: whatever speculations they withheld others were quick to supply. There is distressingly little surviving docu-