We use a several terms in IntroBio that all mean the same thing, but may mean little to students in the classroom–‘binding’, ‘specific interaction’, ‘interacts with’, ‘recognizes’. This is particularly dangerous with ‘recognizes’, because newcomers can envision a police line-up: targets appear and we visually choose one. Alternatively, we risk students imagining a somewhat mystical, or at least poorly-defined ‘way’ that molecules have that is beyond their ken. Nothing could be further from the truth; in some ways one of the easiest things to understand is why two molecules ‘stick to’ one another and overcome the force of Brownian motion, at least for a little while.
(Image source: http://imgur.com/PE07XGM)
using different insertions for the variables”, the game gets much more complicated… and there’s a lot more to ‘teach’ and to discover. I’ve posted a number of different “derived wisdoms” elsewhere (
Too often, biology is presented as gathering data and letting it lead us. While this is a valid and important component, there are also many glorious examples where the thinking came first and directed the experimentation. Many of the great experiments in biology came about this way–Meselson and Stahl (semi-conservative replication), Hershey-Chase (the Blender experiment, or ‘who is the genetic material)… and some that are more abstract–Pauling’s proposal of the alpha helix and beta sheet… and a number of Crick’s hypotheses. This post covers his prediction that efficiencies would be achieved in the tRNA pool through wobble pairing: relaxing orientation of the participants in a basepair to allow one base to partner with several others.