0
$\begingroup$

Is it possible to find how the cross section of DNA looks using without computer simulations ? All pictures I find on the internet are mainly computer simulations.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Note that electron microscope, scanning electron microscope (STM) and atomic force microscope (AFM) are three very different types of devices, imposing very different constraints on the sample type and preparation - even though all of them have, in principle, sufficient resolution. Important limitation for biology is that the sample has to be in vacuum. And, of course, the image is in false color, since these are not light microscopes. $\endgroup$ Sep 27 at 11:27
2
$\begingroup$

Yes. We can use some specialist applications of electron microscopy to do this. This does rely on a computer to do some of the imaging (think very fancy camera).

There is an open access article at Science Advances that has images from transmission electron microscopy of DNA, specifically figures 1 and 3. Note: As mentioned by @timeskull figure 3 is a simulation of the HRTEM method that they used. Real HRTEM images are in figure 1.

Ref: Marini et al., 2015. The structure of DNA by direct imaging. Science Advances vol 1, issue 7.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Wow fig 3 is incredible. $\endgroup$
    – user438383
    Sep 27 at 10:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ bear in mind that figure 3 is a simulation, figure 1 is actual data. $\endgroup$
    – timeskull
    Sep 27 at 14:38
  • $\begingroup$ @timeskull good point. I'll edit that in. $\endgroup$
    – bob1
    Sep 27 at 19:48
  • $\begingroup$ And despite the fact that you have found a very pertinent paper, none of the images are the “cross-section” requested. Your answer would be much more useful to SE Biology if you expanded it to describe what is actually visualized and how the resolution compares with X-ray crystallography, which provides an electron density image. $\endgroup$
    – David
    Sep 27 at 21:49
  • $\begingroup$ @david I agree I could expand the answer, and I may have time to later. I disagree that it isn't sectional - longitudinal section rather than transverse, but the OP doesn't specify which they want. I've found a better paper with another visualization which is clearer and may be more useful. $\endgroup$
    – bob1
    Sep 27 at 22:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy