It is now 75 years since the publication of the Beadle and Tatum experiment in PNAS, an underappreciated 'tipping point' in the development of molecular biology. Beadle and Tatum showed “that genes act by regulating definite chemical events”. They used an organism (the fungus Neurospora) with simple nutritional requirements, whose genetics could be analysed, X-irradiated it and selected for mutants with novel requirements. Their method, which also works for studies of behaviour and development, permitted each nutritional requirement to be associated with a specific gene.
Analysing gene function by producing mutations and selecting for mutants with the desired characteristics was novel
Analysing gene function by producing mutations and selecting for mutants with the desired characteristics was novel; we forget where it originated. The contribution of the Beadle–Tatum experiment was twofold. It provided a methodology that connected biochemistry and genetics, and it revealed a possibly simple relationship between genes and biochemical characteristics (traits). Before this work, there was no experimental way to approach this question: geneticists and embryologists studied systems too complex for the biochemistry of the day, and genetics was a science unrelated to physics or chemistry.
Why is the Beadle–Tatum contribution under-rated, notwithstanding the award of a Nobel Prize for the work? (The historian Horace Judson dismisses it with the comment that “using a mould that grows on bread, [they] first put to effective work Garrod's realisation that what a gene does is specify an enzyme”.) I suggest three reasons. First, their work was soon linked to the hypothesis of 'one gene, one enzyme', and this view has been modified with time. As a result of this linkage, their role in the methodological innovation of mutation induction followed by selection was neglected, as was their contribution to the revolutionary idea that gene function could be described in straightforward biochemical terms. Second, Beadle cultivated the image of a Nebraska farm boy, apparently a non-intellectual, and he turned to administration soon after his discovery. Finally, the current view of the pre-eminence of the elucidation of DNA structure in the development of molecular biology has the advantage of flamboyant personalities and talented authors. There is a lesson here.
References
Beadle, G. W. & Tatum, E. L. Genetic control of biochemical reactions in Neurospora. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 27, 499–506 (1941)
Goldschmidt, R. Physiological Genetics (McGraw-Hill, 1938)
Sturtevant, A. H. & Beadle, G. W. An Introduction to Genetics (W. B. Saunders, 1939)
Benzer, S. Behavioral mutants of Drosophila isolated by countercurrent distribution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 58, 1112–1119 (1967)
Nusslein-Volhard, C. & Wieschaus, E. Mutations affecting segment number and polarity in Drosophila. Nature 287, 795–801 (1980)
Judson, H. F. Reflections on the historiography of molecular biology. Minerva 18, 369–421 (1980)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Strauss, B. Beadle and Tatum and the origins of molecular biology. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 17, 266 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm.2016.42
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm.2016.42