R

:■ íl -ï f''DU :- i■.■■■■ Mïtiw i™':- '■ I".i-.:■ Ji-ri

I'LDV.-lsJ

Fvpc IIIS 1 vif .i mL) bit' i. rtravtrcti ian*. i^acn: À vj ■ ■ :i ih?-hiMl I ■..■ : -!-r

¡. d:-V ll,!înr::î'l!ft:! ïïlf tt^'lli Eí* ¡¿ Ir-trJ Iv

10.2 Griffith's experiments demonstrated transformation in bacteria.

Griffith's results had several possible interpretations, all of which he considered. First, it could have been the case that he had not sufficiently sterilized the type IIIS bacteria and thus a few live bacteria remained in the culture. Any live bacteria injected into the mice would have multiplied and caused pneumonia. Griffith knew that this possibility was unlikely, because he had used only heat-killed type IIIS bacteria in the control experiment, and they never produced pneumonia in the mice.

A second interpretation was that the live, type IIR bacteria had mutated to the virulent S form. Such a mutation would cause pneumonia in the mice, but it would produce type IIS bacteria, not the type IIIS that Griffith found in the dead mice. Many mutations would be required for type II bacteria to mutate to type III bacteria, and the chance of all the mutations occurring simultaneously was impossibly low.

Griffith finally concluded that the type IIR bacteria had somehow been transformed, acquiring the genetic virulence of the dead type IIIS bacteria. This transformation had produced a permanent, genetic change in the bacteria; though Griffith didn't understand the nature of transformation, he theorized that some substance in the polysaccharide coat of the dead bacteria might be responsible. He called this substance the transforming principle.

Identification of the transforming principle At the time of Griffith's report, Oswald Avery (see Figure 10.1) was a microbiologist at the Rockefeller Institute. At first Avery was skeptical but, after other microbiologists successfully repeated Griffith's experiments using other bacteria and showed that transformation took place, Avery set out to identify the nature of the transforming substance.

After 10 years of research, Avery, Colin MacLeod, and Maclyn McCarty succeeded in isolating and purifying the transforming substance. They showed that it had a chemical composition closely matching that of DNA and quite different from that of proteins. Enzymes such as trypsin and chy-motrypsin, known to break down proteins, had no effect on the transforming substance. Ribonuclease, an enzyme that destroys RNA, also had no effect. Enzymes capable of destroying DNA, however, eliminated the biological activity of the transforming substance ( FIGURE 10.3). Avery, MacLeod, and McCarty showed that purified transforming substance precipitated at about the same rate as purified DNA and that it absorbed ultraviolet light at the same wavelengths as does DNA. These results, published in 1944, provided compelling evidence that the transforming principle — and therefore genetic information — resides in DNA. Many biologists still refused to accept the idea, however, still preferring the hypothesis that the genetic material is protein.

10.3 Avery, MacLeod, and McCarty's experiment revealed the nature of the transforming principle.

Question: What is the chemical nature of the transforming substance?

0 0

Post a comment