Wilkins and Franklin (2016) IB Biology

[@KayleighHughes1]

Thank you for your brilliant videos - they are the backbone of my study especially when I don't understand something I have read in the textbook or during lectures :)

[@suchitrabora6522]

Today is Franklin ´s birthday...and glad found this

[@mwo_deez]

you explain it really good and i appreciate this. it truly made my concept clear but just a tiny little correction, the distance they calcualted was 0.34 nm or 3.4 angstrom, not 3.4 nm thank you for your work thoo

[@yli8713]

Thank you very much for the video, it explains everything coherently. However, I thought the distance between 2 horizontal bars, i.e. between 2 stacked bases, is 3.4 Angstroms, which is 0.34nm, rather than 3.4nm. The length of one pitch of the helix (one full turn) is 34 Angstroms, which is 3.4 nm. This means there are 10 base pairs in one full turn.

[@DursameenZehra-b8j]

How does the cross at the centre mean DNA is helical?

[@ghostrealm19]

Thanks for the explanation!!!!

[@vinayakpatil1512]

Dist bet those ladders is 3.4 A or 3.4 nm ?

[@Starboy11576]

Brilliant ❤

[@blaaaboo2524]

it's so good

[@ghostrealm19]

They stole her work!

[@GH-oi2jf]

Lorraine Thompson - Not true. That is a fiction promoted by people who have a political agenda. Franklin made her data available to others herself, in a seminar and in a report distributed to the Cavendish laboratory. Wilkins also shared his x-ray crystallography images. Franklin was something of a loner and her methods were plodding. Had no one else been working on the problem, she would have solved it. But Crick and Watson solved the structure first because they worked hard on the problem and had the inspiration needed to solve it. Franklin was recognized for her contribution. She published her data (with Gosling, her student and assistant) in the same issue of Nature in which Crick and Watson published their structural model. Wilkins also published in thatissue. It is well known that it was a joint effort of all these people that led to the solution.

[@samuellowe9949]

@@GH-oi2jf lorraines in the mud in the mud lorraines in the mud

[@liverpoolirish208]

@@GH-oi2jf Further, it was not "her" work to steal. Franklin was a Post-doc working nominally under Wilkins, with one of Wilkins' PhD students, Raymond Gosling. It was Gosling who took performed his experiment 51D resulting it was is erroneously called "photo 51" (there were a series of "51's") Gosling serendipitously got a good image of the double helix, and Franklin suppressed it, because it went against her ideas. When Franklin was leaving, all Gosling's data was to be transferred back to Wilkins. Franklin gave a lecture before his left, announcing she had disproven that DNA was helix in its' natural state. In the Q&A she was quite roughly handled, and was forced to admit her evidence didn't add up. After the lecture, Gosling fetched photo 51D and showed it to Wilkins as clear evidence that DNA was a double helix. The data Watson and Crick used from King's was the unit cell of DNA. This was determined by Wilkins and Gosling just before Franklin arrived, but was published in the MRC report under Franklin and Gosling, because she'd taken over supervision of Gosling. If you read the correspondence between Watson, Crick & Wilkins when Franklin announced she also wanted to publish, it is clear they went out of their way to accommodate her, despite noting the weakness of her paper. Franklin is lucky that they talked about it, because her first draft stuck with the "not a double helix" conclusion, and she would have appeared very foolish.

[@DhanasekaranT-de4wz]

@@liverpoolirish208 Yoyr alternate point of view that I never heard before about this famous story. Perhaps your depiction of the events makes sense and might have been the actual truth. While it is to be recognized of her meticulous experimental skills she seem pretty rigid about sharing her thoughts with fellow scientists who were aggressively working to solve the structure of DNA. It is the collaborative thinking of the 3 Nobel winners that made it to win the race against time. Thanks for putting your comment. I can sleep well now knowing the complete truth. I am a PhD scientist too but not in Molecular Biology.

[@sugarfree1894]

@@liverpoolirish208 Thank you, this is a good account. Wilkins set it out in his autobiography The Third Man of the Double Helix. He didn't like the title but deferred to his publishers. Very grateful to you :)