this was then regarded as the equivalent of transforming one species into another – a phenomenon never previously observed.’
*
It is little wonder that Avery was astonished by Griffith’s findings. Like Robert Koch before him, Avery subscribed to the view that bacterial strains were immutable in terms of their heredity. The very concept of a mutation – that heredity was capable of an experimentally induced change – was a highly controversial issue within biology and medicine at this time. To understand why, we need to grasp the concept of what a mutation means.
By the late nineteenth century Darwinian theory had entered a crisis. Darwin himself had been well aware that natural selection relied on some additional mechanism, or mechanisms, capable of changing heredity, so that natural selection would have a range of ‘hereditable variation’ to choose between. Generations later, in the opening chapters of his innovative book Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, Julian Huxley put his finger on the nub of the problem. ‘The really important criticisms have fallen upon Natural Selection as an evolutionary principle and centred round the nature of inheritable variation.’ In 1900, a Dutch biologist, Hugo de Vries, put forward a novel mechanism that would be capable of providing the necessary variation: the concept of a random change in a unit of inheritance. Opportunity for change exists when genes are copied during reproduction, when a random change in the coding of a gene might arise from an error in copying the hereditary information. De Vries called this source of hereditary change a ‘mutation’. It was only with what Julian Huxley termed ‘the synthesis’ of Mendelian genetics – the potential for change in the inherited genes through mutation – and Darwinian natural selection operating on the hereditary choices presented within a species, that Darwinian theory became credible again to the great majority of scientists.
In time Griffith’s finding would be confirmed to be what Avery was now wondering about: it was a mutation. Geneticists would show that the change from the R to the S strain of pneumococcus involved the transfer of a gene from the dead S-type II bacteria to the living R-type I bacteria, which was incorporated into subsequent bacterial reproductive cycles, transforming the cells of the R-type I bacterium into the cells of the S-type II bacterium. It was indeed the bacterial equivalent of a change of species. And Griffith was proven right in inferring that Darwinian natural selection had operated even in the short time frame of the infection of a cohort of laboratory mice.
Griffith’s experimental findings galvanised bacteriologists and immunologists around the world. His discovery was confirmed in several different research centres, including the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, where the pneumococcal types had first been classified. The news was inevitably a hot topic of discussion in Avery’s department, as Dubos would recount: ‘but we did not even try to repeat them at first, as if we had been stunned and almost paralysed intellectually by the shocking nature of the findings’.
At first Avery simply couldn’t believe that bacterial types could be transformed. Indeed, he had been one of the authoritative figures who had settled the fixity of bacterial reproduction being true to type years before. But from 1926 Avery encouraged a young Canadian physician working in the Rockefeller Laboratory, M. H. Dawson, to investigate the situation. According to Dubos, Dawson, unlike Avery, was convinced from the start that Griffith’s conclusion must be correct because he believed that ‘work done in the British Ministry of Health had to be right’.
Dawson began by confirming Griffith’s findings in laboratory mice. His results suggested that the majority of non-virulent bacteria – the R types – had the ability in certain circumstances to revert to the virulent S type. By 1930 the young Canadian was joined by a Chinese colleague, Richard P. Sia, and between them they took the experimental observations further by confirming that the hereditary transformation could be brought about in culture media, without the need for passage through mice. At this stage, Dawson left the department and Avery encouraged another young physician, J. L. Alloway, to take the investigation further. Alloway discovered that all he needed to bring about the transformation was a soluble fraction derived from the S pneumococci by dissolving the living cells in sodium deoxycholate, then passing the resultant solution through filters to remove the bits of broken-up cells. When he added alcohol to the filtered solution, the active material precipitated out as sticky syrup. Throughout the laboratory this sticky syrup was referred to as the ‘transforming principle’. So the work continued, experiment following experiment, year by year.
When Alloway left the department, in 1932, Avery began to devote some of his own time to the pneumococcus transformation, in particular aiming to improve the extraction and preparation of the transforming substance. Frustration followed frustration. He focused on its chemical nature. Discussion took place with other members of the department, ranging from the ‘plamagene’ that was thought to induce cancer in chickens (now known to be a retrovirus), or to the genetic alterations in bacteria that were thought to be caused by viruses. According to Dubos, Alloway suggested the transforming agent might be a protein-polysaccharide complex. But by 1935 Avery was beginning to think along other lines. In his annual departmental report that year he indicated that he had obtained the transforming material in a form that was essentially clear of any capsular polysaccharide. In 1936, Rollin Hotchkiss, a biochemist who had now arrived to work in the department, wrote a historic comment in his personal notes:
‘Avery outlined to me that the transforming agent could hardly be a carbohydrate, did not match very well with a protein and wistfully suggested it might be a nucleic acid!’ At this stage, Dubos, who many years later would write a book about Avery and his work, dismissed this as no more than a surmise. There were good reasons for his caution.
That year few researchers throughout the world believed that the answer to heredity lay with nucleic acids. These chemical entities had been discovered by a Swiss biochemist, Johann Friedrich Miescher, back in the late 1800s. Fascinated by the chemistry of the nucleus, Miescher had broken open the nuclei of white blood cells in pus, and subsequently the heads of salmon sperm, to discover a new chemical compound which was acidic to pH testing, rich in phosphorus and comprised of enormously large molecules. After a lifetime of experimentation on the discovery, Miescher’s pupil, Richard Altmann, would introduce the term nucleic acid to describe Miescher’s discovery. By the 1920s, biochemists and geneticists were aware that there were two kinds of nucleic acids. One was called ribonucleic acid, or RNA, which contained four structural chemicals: guanine, adenine, cytosine and uracil, or GACU. The other was called ‘desoxyribonucleic acid’, or DNA, which was a major component of the chromosomes. They had deciphered its four bases – three identical to RNA, guanine, adenine and cytosine, but with the uracil replaced by thymine – making the acronym GACT. They knew that these four bases consisted of two different pairs of organic chemicals; adenine and guanine being purines, and cytosine and thymine being pyrimidines. They also knew that they were strung together to form very long molecules. At first they thought that RNA was confined to plants while DNA was confined to animals, but by the early thirties this was dismissed when it was found that both RNA and DNA were universally distributed throughout the animal and plant kingdoms. Still they had no knowledge of what nucleic acids actually did in the nuclei of cells.
A distinguished organic chemist based at the Rockefeller Institute, Phoebus Aaron Levene, proposed that the structures of DNA and RNA were exceedingly boring – they formed groups of four bases that repeated themselves in the identical repetitive formation throughout the molecule, like a four-letter word, repeated ad nauseam. This was called ‘the tetranucleotide hypothesis’. Such a banal molecule couldn’t possibly underlie the exceedingly complex basis of heredity. In the words of Horace Freeland Judson, ‘the belief was held with dogmatic tenacity that DNA could only be some sort of structural stiffening, the laundry cardboard in the shirt, the wooden stretcher behind the Rembrandt, since the genetic material would have to be protein’.
Proteins are lengthy molecules made up of smaller organic chemical units known as amino acids. There are 20 amino acids in the make-up of proteins, reminiscent of the number of letters that make up alphabets. If genes were the hereditary equivalents
