Hidden world: molecules inside cells that grab DNA like rock climbers
October 29, 2012

Imaging the molecular machine MukBEF using flourescent tags attached to its component parts. (credit: University of Oxford)
“Each machine functions in much the same way as a rock-climber clinging to a cliff face,” says Mark Leake of Oxford University’s Department of Physics.
“It has one end anchored to a portion of cellular DNA while the other end opens and closes randomly by using chemical energy stored in a ubiquitous bio-molecule called adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the universal molecular fuel for all living cells. …
Using new imaging technology, Oxford University researchers have found how the molecular machines that remodel genetic material inside cells grab onto DNA like a rock climber looking for a handhold.
The experiments use laser light to generate very bright patches close to single cells. When coupled with fluorescent tags this “spotlight” makes it possible to image the inner workings of cells fast enough to see how the molecular machines inside change size, shape, and composition in the presence of DNA.
The molecular machines in question are called Structural Maintenance of Chromosome (SMC) complexes. They remodel the genetic material inside every living cell and work along principles similar to a large family of molecules that act as very small motors performing functions as diverse as trafficking vital material inside cells to allowing muscles to contract.
The researchers studied a particular SMC, MukBEF (which is made from several different protein molecules), inside the bacterium E.coli. David Sheratt and his team found a way to fuse fluorescent proteins directly to the DNA coding for MukBEF, effectively creating a single dye tag for each component of these machines.
Up until now conventional techniques of biological physics or biochemistry have not been sufficiently fast or precise to monitor such tiny machines inside living cells at the level of single molecules.
It is hoped that pioneering biophysics experiments such as this will give fresh insights into the complex processes which are vital to life, and pave the way for a whole new approach to biomedical research at the very tiny length scale for understanding the causes of many diseases in humans, and how to devise new strategies to combat them.
Comments (8)
by Drexler
The troubling thing most people see with this tech is the overpopulation issue when people start routinely living past 200-300 years. This can seriously impact our environment and cause a huge food crisis. But none of these things are insurmountable as technology is keeping abreast on all this requirements. The more of us there are, the more minds at work at keeping problems resolved and addressed.
by William Jarkovsky
…..aren’t these just centrioles and the spindle fibers?
by Ralph Dratman
I am uneasy about the medical agenda that makes prolongation of human life its major goal. Even if you add “quality of life” to the objective, I’m just not sure. Should we be keeping people alive without regard to the personal and social consequences?
Naturally, if I were dying of some disease that might be overcome by new science, I would jump at the chance to live longer — and that is true for almost all of us.
Nevertheless, is it really a good idea?
by JC
What are the bad ‘personal consequences’ of aiding someone to have a quality of life beyond 120 years?
by Ralph Dratman
I am not saying I’m certain it is bad, only that it makes me uneasy.
I worry that if doctors extend someone’s life beyond 110 or 120, is the person having a good quality of life? It seems that many elderly people are not happy with their quality of life. Will we have enough doctors, nurses and other helpers to take care of very old people who may not be in good health? And there may be other consequences we cannot now forsee.
Radical life extension is an experiment. It troubles me.
by Jon
It’s radical healthy life extension we’re aiming for, Ralph Dratman.
We want a 120-year-old to look and feel like they’re 35.
And if you think about it, if you want to make it to 200 or so, you’ll have to be in pretty good (young) shape for most of that time. Someone doesn’t walk around with the body of a 90-year-old for 100 years and expect everything to work out fine.
Basically we want to keep people in peak physical condition for as long as possible. Prevent and cure all the ailments we can.
The side effect would be that one would get to live for a far greater period of time.
by JC
Aging to decrepitude and death are troubling too. Perhaps much more troubling?
by Marcos Marin
MacBETH… hahaha