My biology textbook mentions that DNA is antiparallel and it got me wondering... Can DNA be parallel? What would happen if it was parallel? could DNA still replicate right?

up vote 14 down vote accepted

Interestingly the answer is yes. The problem with parallel strands is that the DNA is not pairing in the known way it does when it is combined anti-parallel (or Watson-Crick-pairs). I have found different images illustrating the problems:

enter image description here

enter image description here

Both images are from this blog post (originally from a publication cited there which is not available online). Both pictures show a distorted DNA structure.

This article ("NMR structure of a parallel-stranded DNA duplex at atomic resolution") shows a more schematic solution of this problem by showing the single pairings. C and G cannot build up 3 hydrogen bonds as they do this in the Watson-Crick-pairing.

The hydrogen bonding schemes for antiparallel and parallel DNA duplexes. The antiparallel DNA duplexes are stabilized by Watson–Crick base pairing, while other schemes are possible for parallel duplexes. (A) Watson–Crick G:C base pair, (B) Hoogsteen G:C+ base pair, (C) Donohue G:C base pair, (D) Watson–Crick A:T base pair, (E) Hoogsteen A:T base pair, (F) Donohue A:T base pair and (G) C:C+ base pair.

Subfigure A and C show the Watson-Crick-pairs, the others come from parallel bindings.

This changes in structure disrupts the function of the DNA (which for example depends on the reverse strand for proof reading). Enzymes which replicate, transcribe, repair etc. DNA will not work on this changed structure, as their function depends on the structural features of the DNA.

  • here is an interesting paper about parallel double stranded RNA with A-A base pairing. This requires ammonium chloride though. – user137 Jan 19 '15 at 23:20
  • Wow. Thank you. that was more than I was hoping for. Thank you for adding all of the details. – Alex Stacks Jan 22 '15 at 16:13

I think one interesting possibility is that using PARALLEL construction it's very hard to make 'interesting' structures. This isn't important for DNA itself, but is critical for RNA molecules now... and even more so historically in the 'RNA world'. Consider: if making a structure using ANTIPARALLEL pairing, all the nucleic acid needs to do is 'turn around' 180 degrees (known as a 'hairpin' turn) before being able to pair with itself (i.e. form starting structure). This is well illustrated by tRNA

Now--try to draw a tRNA-like structure using PARALLEL pairing--a strand must go through a FULL 360-degree turn before being able to self-pair. This is wasteful and perhaps even impossible without lots of added sequence. Since most folks accept that the beginnings of life were RNA or RNA-like molecules that were both functional (which requires meaningful shapes) as well as 'coding' (DNA or RNA sequence), if shapes were overly convoluted or could not form, life cannot start.

This would be an evolutionary, as opposed to structural, argument against parallel structures.

  • Seems like an interesting hypothesis. Can you add references for the second part of your answer? – have fun Oct 2 '17 at 15:19

There is another issue here which is more biological. In general, the enzymes that replicate and "read" DNA run in one direction along the single strand of DNA that they are operating on. The fact that the other strand of DNA is running in the opposite direction makes it impossible for these enzymes to jump from one strand to the other and ensures that they are operating on the proper information to do their job. If the DNA strands were parallel, the enzymes would be likely to attach at a locus and then randomly read information from either strand, and the information produced would be gobbldygook. So while it is chemically possible to have parallel DNA, a biological system that was based on parallel DNA would be at a big competitive disadvantage and so if they ever arose, they were probably driven extinct by the systems we now see that use anti-parallel DNA.

  • 1
    welcome to bio. Could you add your sources? – AliceD Jan 20 '17 at 17:26

Your Answer


By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.