The Watson-Crick double helix, established in 1953 through X-ray diffraction and refined by subsequent structural studies, provides a framework for understanding DNA’s roles in replication, heredity, and gene expression. Its explanatory power drives modern molecular biology. Yet, a critical knowledge gap persists: we lack atomic-level structural data for native, fibrous DNA - the hydrated, fibrous form analysed by Rosalind Franklin in her seminal 1952 Photograph 51. This oversight, rooted in historical, methodological, and systemic constraints, warrants renewed scrutiny.
Franklin’s Photo 51, captured at 92% humidity, offered a snapshot of DNA in a biologically relevant state - hydrated and fibrous, closer to its in vivo environment than the crystalline forms later prioritised. Its diffraction pattern suggested a helical structure but lacked the resolution to confirm base-pairing specifics or atomic arrangements. Following Watson and Crick’s model, research shifted towards synthetic oligonucleotides and DNA-protein complexes, leveraging high-resolution techniques like NMR and X-ray crystallography. These systems, while tractable, diverge from the complex reality of native DNA - supercoiled, protein-associated, and responsive to cellular conditions. As a result, direct structural studies of fibrous DNA faded, leaving assumptions about its conformity to the Watson-Crick model untested at the atomic scale. A 2021 review highlights DNA’s structural polymorphism in hydrated states, underscoring that native DNA may not always mirror the textbook double helix.
The Watson-Crick model describes replication as a biophysically intricate process: the helix unwinds, topoisomerases cleave covalent bonds to relieve supercoiling, and polymerases rebuild strands. This mechanism, while effective, demands significant enzymatic intervention. Could native DNA’s structure enable simpler dynamics? Alternative models, though speculative, probe this possibility. For instance, Mark Curtis’s pentagonal DNA model proposes a double helix with pentagonal base pairing, rooted in the geometry of purine bases. Unlike Watson-Crick’s flat pairs, which Watson noted “fell apart” without external support, Curtis’s structure is self-supporting, distributing torque via its decagonal framework. It aligns with Photo 51’s 3.4 Å layer lines and \~34 Å repeat, matches the 10 base pairs per turn, and offers flexibility: stretching into a ladder, adopting ambidextrous chirality, or intercalating into four-stranded forms - potentially even bending to intercalate with itself.
This adaptability suggests replication mechanisms less reliant on topoisomerase, unfolding physically rather than enzymatically. Independent researchers have echoed similar ideas. Tai Te Wu’s 1969 paper proposed Hoogsteen-paired, intercalated helices that fit Photo 51 at 92% humidity better than Watson-Crick’s 66%, hinting at structural versatility. Ken Biegeleisen’s work on non-destructive strand separation and Karst Hoogsteen’s 1959 and 1963 crystallographic studies of alternative base pairing further converge on flexible, non-standard DNA forms. Curtis, an artist, arrived at his model through geometric visualisation, not biology, yet aligns with these scientists’ findings.
This gap captivates because it unites independent thinkers - scientists, artists, and researchers - converging on non-standard DNA structures from disparate starting points. Tai Te Wu, a physicist, reinterpreted diffraction data to propose four-stranded DNA; Ken Biegeleisen, a biologist, explored replication without enzymatic cleavage; Mark Curtis, an artist, visualised a pentagonal helix; and Karst Hoogsteen, a crystallographer, revealed alternative base pairing. Hoogsteen’s 1959 and 1963 studies, analysing A-T complexes, showed molecules pairing via the pentagonal purine geometry, contradicting Watson-Crick’s model. His 1963 paper illustrates a “collapsed” A-T keto pair, mirroring Curtis’s pentagonal proposal, and notes that molecules, given freedom, avoided Watson-Crick pairing. This convergence isn’t coincidence - it signals native DNA’s potential for structural complexity beyond the Watson-Crick ladder.
Curtis’s model is particularly compelling for its functional elegance. Its pentagonal geometry, inspired by purine rings, generates a helix that may vary from 9.5 to 10.5 base pairs per turn, accommodating natural molecular flexibility. Unlike congruent shapes (e.g., hexagons) that dissipate energy, pentagons, as Johannes Kepler noted, focus energy due to their incongruence, potentially strengthening hydrogen bonds between purines and pyrimidines. This could enhance DNA’s mechanical resilience, as seen in G-quadruplex-rich cancer cells. A 2023 review on G-quadruplexes highlights Hoogsteen pairing’s stability in vivo, suggesting Curtis’s model could extend to supercoiling or epigenetic contexts. These interdisciplinary voices, often marginalised, challenge the energy-intensive replication of Watson-Crick’s rigid structure.
Modern tools - single-molecule imaging, advanced X-ray crystallography, and high-resolution cryo-EM - could resolve native DNA’s atomic structure. Unlike early fibre diffraction, these methods capture dynamic, complex systems, ideal for probing DNA in hydrated, cellular contexts. An interdisciplinary approach, blending physics (for molecular dynamics), mathematics (for geometric modelling), and biology (for functional context), could unlock answers. Yet, this gap persists. Post-Watson-Crick, resources favoured synthetic systems with clearer data, and the double helix’s predictive success dulled urgency. The scientific landscape - driven by funding priorities and incremental research - often sidelines foundational questions, as seen in the marginalisation of Wu and others. A 2018 article on scientific inertia notes similar resistance to paradigm shifts despite new tools.
Resolving native DNA’s structure could affirm Watson-Crick in its natural state or reveal context-dependent variations - both advancing biology. Replication challenges, like supercoiling’s energy cost, might find new explanations. Curtis’s model, while unproven, suggests testable predictions: could its flexibility simplify replication or enhance DNA’s resilience in cancer cells, where G-quadruplexes abound? The convergence of Wu, Biegeleisen, Curtis, and Hoogsteen underscores the urgency of revisiting this gap with modern tools.
Does indirect evidence from synthetic DNA suffice, or should we prioritise direct structural data on native, fibrous DNA? Could alternative models, despite their outsider status, inspire experiments? Views are welcome - let’s discuss whether this gap merits closing.
References