How did they know what we knew? like in the case of TCA cycle - (Aug/09/2010 )
There is a question that has bothered me for a long time,which is "how did they know what we knew?" in the early time researches of metabolism,like the understanding of TCA cycle in1940s when there was barely any DNA/protein information or investigation technology.I mean no NCBI,no WB,no molecular biology.
So how did they know what they knew?What kinds of experienments did they do?Is there any way that I can see any of their original(raw) reports(publications) at that time?
Thank you very much for any clues.
Great question. The short answer is that almost all of this was done with crude analytical techniques and radioactivity. Radioactivity was about the only good tool available during the 30s and 40s when most of this work was done, but people were quite expert at organic chemistry. No chromatography, though.
Most of the early Nature and Science articles are now online, but you may need to paid access for them. A good university library probably has them on the shelf, or has online access.
phage434 on Mon Aug 9 14:06:44 2010 said:
Great question. The short answer is that almost all of this was done with crude analytical techniques and radioactivity. Radioactivity was about the only good tool available during the 30s and 40s when most of this work was done, but people were quite expert at organic chemistry. No chromatography, though.
Most of the early Nature and Science articles are now online, but you may need to paid access for them. A good university library probably has them on the shelf, or has online access.
It's very kind of you,
Thank you very much!
But from where that you know their tool is radioactivity?
I hardly remembered that any biochemical book has metioned their experienment approaches when it came to their conclusions.
Is there any modern ways by which we can verified their conclusion?
The TCA cycle was figured out pretty much the same way we figure stuff out today -- by careful, logical experimentation, drawing on and extending prior work by colleagues, and by using the best technology available. There is really no mystery -- though perhaps the technology might be foreign to him, our methodology would be easily recognized by Krebbs today, as it hasn't changed.
See here.