DNA is directly photographed for the first time, page 1

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times

Topic started on 30-11-2012 @ 05:32 PM by RUFFREADY

This is really cool!! A real picture of DNA through an Electron Microscope !! I wonder what else will be coming our way!

Check this out: DNA's double-helix structure is on display for the first time in this electron microscope photograph of a small bundle of DNA strands.

link: www.msnbc.msn.com...

Di Fabrizio thinks that snapshots of individual double helices will soon be possible

edit on 30-11-2012 by RUFFREADY because: added stuff he hehe ha

reply posted on 30-11-2012 @ 05:36 PM by BASSPLYR

Very cool! It looks different than how it's usually depicted. Instead of a twisting ladder it looks more like a compressed slinky or even a hair follicle.

Very cool find.

reply posted on 30-11-2012 @ 05:38 PM by Ghost375

That's pretty damn impressive. What is it like 3nm(nanometers) wide? I should know, I just had a pretty in-depth exam over DNA today. I think I aced it

lol didn't need to memorize the width though.

I looked it up, it's 2.37 nm wide.

edit on 30-11-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-11-2012 @ 06:09 PM by boncho

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
Very cool! It looks different than how it's usually depicted. Instead of a twisting ladder it looks more like a compressed slinky or even a hair follicle.

Very cool find.

I think a lot of that is just the "fuzz" around the DNA. If you look closely you will see darker thin lines that probably would look closer to the classical depictions if the atomic haze around it wasn't there. Although I think it will not be identical to it, still not as bad as I initially though when I first looked at the picture.

edit on 30-11-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-11-2012 @ 06:35 PM by Dustytoad

reply to post by boncho

Yea it's a grainy picture.. I mean who could expect it any different? resolution is a problem..

It said later they would be able to get a single double helix.. This means we are not looking at a double helix.. We are looking at double helixes all stacked together..

I'm in shock that we can see that much even..

If you zoom in far enough eventually you will find nothing... hehehehe

the article doesn't say how many strands we see there, just that's more than one pair.. More than 2 strands.

edit on 11/30/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-12-2012 @ 03:27 PM by Snaffers

AMAZING !!
Looks like the development of the macro function has taken a giant leap

Time to get a new camera

reply posted on 2-12-2012 @ 03:32 PM by rickymouse

Kind of looks like an old pipe cleaner that my grandpa had. Reoccurring shapes in nature

I have a small brush that looks like that also, for cleaning out tiny channels and thread holes. It doesn't look anything like the pictures that are in the textbooks, it looks much more complex. Very good find there OP, I like interesting stuff like this.

reply posted on 2-12-2012 @ 03:40 PM by Jukiodone

Great to actually "see" DNA as most images are just computer generated.

reply posted on 2-12-2012 @ 03:48 PM by alldaylong

reply to post by RUFFREADY

DNA was first photographed in 1952.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply posted on 2-12-2012 @ 04:26 PM by Ghost375

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by RUFFREADY

DNA was first photographed in 1952.

en.wikipedia.org...

and that's why you don't use Wikipedia as a source.....

what was done back then wasn't a direct photograph.

reply posted on 2-12-2012 @ 04:36 PM by alldaylong

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by RUFFREADY

DNA was first photographed in 1952.

en.wikipedia.org...

and that's why you don't use Wikipedia as a source.....

what was done back then wasn't a direct photograph.

If your not happy with Wikipedia then try this:-

www.accessexcellence.org...

When is a photograph not a photograph then?

reply posted on 2-12-2012 @ 06:52 PM by Plotus

Just as the electron microscope changed everything, and prior to that it was simply optical, I'd imagine technology will give us an even more powerful vehicle for observation and optical enlargement.

reply posted on 2-12-2012 @ 06:59 PM by nixie_nox

reply to post by rickymouse

I was going to say, looks like a mascara brush.

reply posted on 2-12-2012 @ 07:36 PM by Bspiracy

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by RUFFREADY

DNA was first photographed in 1952.

en.wikipedia.org...

and that's why you don't use Wikipedia as a source.....

what was done back then wasn't a direct photograph.

If your not happy with Wikipedia then try this:-

www.accessexcellence.org...

When is a photograph not a photograph then?

when it's a X-ray diffraction photo
here it is I believe..