Category Archives: Transhuman News

DNA on K-Shine: "It #39;s Debatable 2-1 Either Way"
http://www.vladtv.com/ - DNA chopped it up with VladTV once again, this time to speak about his battle with K-Shine, and his historic moment of being the fir...

By: djvlad

See the original post here:
DNA on K-Shine: "It's Debatable 2-1 Either Way" - Video

Sirius Alien DNA Tests Prove it Was Actually Human
Sirius Alien DNA Tests Prove it Was Actually Human It was hailed as proof of alien life, a mummified visitor from another planet. Ten years after the remains...

By: cipiripilala

See the original post:
Sirius Alien DNA Tests Prove it Was Actually Human - Video

DNA Test, Absolute Proof of Alien Life - Sirius Movie
Sirius - It Is Time For You To Know The question is not do they exist. The question is how are they getting here. A documentary film based on the pioneering ...

By: WakeHumanity

Read more:
DNA Test, Absolute Proof of Alien Life - Sirius Movie - Video

Less than a year before Watson and Cricks paper, A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid, was published in Nature, 60 years ago today, Rosalind Franklin sent around a hand-lettered obituary:

Obituary for the helix. Wellcome Library.

Led astray by her own evidence, she had missed, just barely, making the greatest discovery in the history of biology: the coiled, interlaced structure that explained with such clarity the working of the gene. The secret of life, Crick called it.

Gosling, the other signatory, was Franklins assistant at Kings College in London, and Wilkins was her boss and bte noire. Besselised refers to Bessel functions, a mathematical tool used to analyze the photographic images she so expertly produced of DNA. But the most significant word in her mocking postcard was the one in parentheses: crystalline.

Several months earlier, having mastered better than anyone a technique called x-ray crystallography, she had taken the clearest pictures yet of the molecule. It came in two forms, depending on whether it was crystallized (shape A) or dissolved in water (shape B). It was the longer, stretched-out wet form, her Photo 51, that went on to become legendary. Horace Freeland Judson describes it in The Eighth Day of Creation:

The overall pattern was a huge blurry diamond. The top and bottom points of the diamond were capped by heavily exposed, dark arcs. From the bulls-eye, a striking arrangement of short, horizontal smears stepped out along the diagonals in the shape of an X or a maltese cross. The pattern shouted helix.

The question that has dogged historians ever since is why Franklin didnt shout out the same. Instead she put image B aside, concentrating instead on the far less certain pattern in image A. No matter how hard she looked, she couldnt see a helix there.

Franklins Photo 51. Wellcome Library.

She bristled when Crick, working with Watson at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge, told her she was allowing herself to be misled by ambiguous markings and that both forms must be helical. But she couldnt be persuaded. Cautious by nature, she believed in holding back on interpretation and grand theories until all the data were gathered and understood, the seeming contradictions resolved. Her style was to work from the bottom up, meticulously trying to piece together the big picture.

She thought it was rash and premature that Crick and Watson, with their top-down approach, were enthusiastically building models castles in the air before they had laid the foundation. As they put together their sheet-metal and wire sculpture, the details, they believed, could be filled in along the way.

Read more here:
On DNA's Anniversary: How Rosalind Franklin Missed the Helix

Heritage Auctions

Doctor Francis Crick's endorsement of the Nobel Prize check.

By Stephanie Pappas LiveScience

A new cache of letters released 50 years after Maurice Wilkins, Francis Crick and James Watson won the Nobel Prize for the discovery of DNA's structure reveals that not everyone agreed on which prize the trio should receive.

Wilkins, Crick and Watson ended up winning the 1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material," according to the official citation. But at least one scientist nominated them for the chemistry prize instead, researchers will report Wednesdayin the journal Nature.

Nature first published a series of three papers describing the structure of DNA by the team on April 25, 1953, making this year the 60th anniversary of the discovery. Watson, Crick, Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin (who died before the 1962 Nobel Prize was awarded) and their colleagues were the first to understand DNA's unique double-helix structure. [Photos: Crick DNA Nobel On the Auction Block]

Nobel Prize puzzlerJan Witkowski and Alexander Gann of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York wrote to the Nobel committee to request the release of the nomination letters for the 1962 prize, as nomination letters are unsealed after 50 years. To their surprise, one letter seemed to be missing: That of Jacque Monod, a French biologist who would later win the Nobel Prize himself for research into the genetics of enzymes.

"We were surprised because both Jim Watson and Francis Crick said that Monod was one of the people who nominated them," Witkowski told LiveScience. In fact, in 1961, Crick sent Monod a nine-page letter telling the story of the DNA structure discovery, at Monod's request.

Monod worked at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, so Witkowski and Gann turned to the Institute's archives to solve the puzzle of the missing nomination. There, they found Monod's nomination letter only sent to an unexpected address.

"It turns out that he nominated them for the chemistry prize, and not the medicine prize," Witkowski said. That's why the medicine or physiology committee had no record of the nomination, though the committees must have shared the nomination letters to decide which of the two prizes the DNA structure scientists should win.

Visit link:
New Nobel letters reveal secrets of DNA prize

DNA Services of America announces continued growth during the first quarter of 2013 adding new US jobs to a slow economy. DNA Services of America specializes in DNA profiling to establish paternity, determine family ancestry, immigration, and legal needs.

(PRWEB) April 24, 2013

DNA Services of America specializes exclusively in DNA testing. DNA tests are an important part of many aspects of relationships and legal formalities. Using PCR technology, DNA services is able to provide fast and easy services from local Service Centers. DNA Services of America also offers a home DNA kit that provides both privacy and security in testing.

Since the beginning of the company, DNA Services of America has had a keen eye on appropriate growth. DNA Services of America opened their doors just before the beginning of the Great Recession, which the US is still struggling to overcome. In 2009, John Caro, Jr. joined Jeffrey A. Martin and their experiences and resources have helped the company navigate through many changes in the DNA testing industry.

Jeffrey A. Martin has been a leader in the healthcare industry for nearly 25 years. After graduating from Louisiana State University with a B.S. in Finance, Jeffrey A. Martin used his knowledge to develop an independent office of a leading provider of paramedical services. During that time his office grew in revenue by 800% and earned an 85% market share. In 2005, Jeffrey sold his paramedical company to start DNA Services of America.

John Caro earned a B.S. in Finances and a MBA from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. Since graduation, John Caro has had a dynamic business career of growing businesses with over 20 years of experience. John matured a gamily insurance and securities business until 1995 when he sold the business to take a management position at Neiman Marcus, a major group benefits company. Afterward he left Neiman Marcus and joined the banking industry while continuing to develop companies and his own experiences.

Currently, Jeffrey A. Martin and John Caro head DNA Services of America with an eye on the future. Looking to grow the business further, the dynamic team foresees strong growth through the rest of 2013.

John Caro DNA Services of America 800-927-1635 Email Information

See the article here:
DNA Services of America Expands Business Adding New US Jobs

The molecular double-helix structure of DNA

On this day 60 years ago a scientific-research paper was published that would change the world. James Watson and Francis Crick revealed the chemical structure of DNA, the molecule that contains the genetic blueprint and drives inheritance.

For many years it was the stuff of scientists studying genetics and disease, but words and ideas such as genes and inheritance of traits have become part of common parlance.

The rapid growth in our understanding over the past 60 years, including the delivery of genomes for a range of species including humans, has affected all of us at some level. This knowledge has brought improved medical treatments, new drugs and better disease diagnosis. It has increased crop yields, is helping to raise the nutritional value of foods, and is helping to develop replacement tissues for worn-out joints. Here, three people working in different areas share their impressions of the discovery six decades on.

Rosita Boland Irish Times feature writer

My first encounter with DNA occurred long before I understood what it was. I am the only red-haired person in my family, and became aware as a small child that this was somehow odd. Neither the generation preceding me, my own, or the one now following me has a rib of red hair between them. But red hair, that recessive gene, is in there somewhere in my combined DNA of Bolands and Comers: some long-dead relative has passed it on to me.

I find it almost impossible to comprehend the fact that physical likenesses can turn up generations later in families. I sometimes look at my nieces and nephews and wonder am I looking at clues to our long-dead, and mostly unphotographed relatives: jigsaws of genetics. It makes me feel dizzy, as does wondering if abstract characteristics of a person, such as courage, aspiration, kindness, grace and curiosity, can ever repeat themselves in similar ways. Is that an unscientific thought? Who knows?

But mostly, when I think about DNA, I marvel at how it has transformed forensic science. It enables the possibility of a second chance for justice being sought, often long after the crime has been committed. Retrospective justice no longer depends on Victorian ad-hoc deathbed-type confessions. Even the infinitesimally tiniest pieces of us of our bones, blood, hair, skin or body fluids can now constitute vital crime-scene clues to those who know how to read them.

DNA makes time fluid. Three generations later, a nose can be repeated like a motif down a genetic line. And it has the power to reel a person back in, through decades, even through death, to face truth about previously unsolved crime. I can still hardly believe these facts. Its more like science fiction than the stuff of science.

Aoife McLysaght Professor in genetics at Trinity College Dublin The structure of DNA was once a mystery to be solved, but nowadays, kids might even have seen it in cartoons before they start school. Humans were once considered exempt from the rigours of natural selection, somehow separate and above mere animals, but today it is common knowledge that our DNA is almost identical to that of a chimp.

View post:
DNA: the double helix that changed the world

A new cache of letters released 50 years after Maurice Wilkins, Francis Crick and James Watson won the Nobel Prize for the discovery of DNA's structure reveals that not everyone agreed on which prize the trio should receive.

Wilkins, Crick and Watson ended up winning the 1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material," according to the official citation. But at least one scientist nominated them for the chemistry prize instead, researchers write this week (April 25) in the journal Nature.

Nature first published a series of three papers describing the structure of DNA by the team on April 25, 1953, making this year the 60th anniversary of the discovery. Watson, Crick, Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin (who died before the 1962 Nobel Prize was awarded) and their colleagues were the first to understand DNA's unique double-helix structure. [Photos: Crick DNA Nobel On the Auction Block]

Nobel Prize puzzler

Jan Witkowski and Alexander Gann of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York wrote to the Nobel committee to request the release of the nomination letters for the 1962 prize, as nomination letters are unsealed after 50 years. To their surprise, one letter seemed to be missing: That of Jacque Monod, a French biologist who would later win the Nobel Prize himself for research into the genetics of enzymes.

"We were surprised because both Jim Watson and Francis Crick said that Monod was one of the people who nominated them," Witkowski told LiveScience. In fact, in 1961, Crick sent Monod a nine-page letter telling the story of the DNA structure discovery, at Monod's request.

Monod worked at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, so Witkowski and Gann turned to the Institute's archives to solve the puzzle of the missing nomination. There, they found Monod's nomination letter only sent to an unexpected address.

"It turns out that he nominated them for the chemistry prize, and not the medicine prize," Witkowski said. That's why the medicine or physiology committee had no record of the nomination, though the committees must have shared the nomination letters to decide which of the two prizes the DNA structure scientists should win.

Third nominee

The nomination letters also reveal that Franklin, who died in 1958, was never nominated for the Nobel Prize. There has been a lot of controversy over whether Franklin would have shared in the Nobel had she been alive in 1962, Witkowski said. (Nobels are not awarded posthumously.) Many have argued that Franklin's contributions were downplayed and overlooked by Watson and Crick.

View original post here:
Newfound Nobel Letters Reveal Secrets of DNA Prize

The discovery of the DNA double helix 60 years ago proved to be a headache for the Nobel organisation as the feat became nominated for prizes in different categories at the same time, Nature reported on Wednesday.

Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins of Britain and James Watson of the United States shared the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1962, nine years after revealing that the code for life has a spiral-staircase structure joined by chemical rungs.

But two researchers who delved into the award process were stunned to find that the trio were simultaneously nominated for the Nobel Prize for Chemistry that same year.

"The fact that the double helix was the subject of nominations for both prizes must have presented a dilemma for the two [award] committees," Alexander Gann and Jan Witkowski of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York report in a letter to the journal.

The evidence comes from a letter that French geneticist Jacques Monod wrote to the Nobel Committee for Chemistry, nominating the trio for the chemistry award. Gann and Witkowski found the letter in the archives of the Pasteur Institute in Paris.

In the event, the 1962 chemistry Nobel went to Max Perutz and John Kendrew for work on haemoglobin and myoglobin.

The only person to have won the Nobel in different categories of science is Marie Curie, who in 1903 shared the physics award with her husband Pierre and Henri Becquerel, and in 1911 was the sole winner of the chemistry prize.

Separately, Gann and Witkowski say that Crick wrote a nine-page letter to Monod on December 31 1961 to describe his joint quest with Watson to identify DNA.

In his letter, Crick "acknowledges the importance" of X-ray imaging by Rosalind Franklin in determining "certain features" of DNA's structure, the pair say.

Franklin has become a cause celebre among some feminists, who say Crick, Watson and Wilkins snubbed her and never acknowledged her vital contribution.

Visit link:
DNA breakthrough spelt double trouble for Nobels