CC BY
21
КРАТКИЕ СООБЩЕНИЯ
'Rediscovery' of Mendel's Laws Reconsidered. The Relevance of Armin von Tschermak-Seysenegg (1870-1952) — a keynote address
Michal V. SimunekGeorgyS. Lr.vif, Uwe Hossfeld3
'Centre for the History of Sciences and Humanities/Institute of Contemporary History, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Puskinovo nam. 9, CZ-16000 Prague; e-mail: simunekm@centrum.cz 1 Centre for the History of Sciences and Humanities/Institute of Contemporary History, Academy of Sciences of the Czech 2ITMO University, Chaikovsky Str. 11, 191187 St. Petersburg, Russia; georgelevit@gmx.net;
gslevit@corp. ifmo. ru 3 AG Biologiedidaktik, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Am Steiger 3, Bienenhaus, 07743 Jena, Germany; uwe.hossfeld@uni-jena.de
The so-called 'rediscovery' of Mendel's work in 1900 is considered as the turning point in both in the history of biology and genetics as a new and progressive discipline. This paper adds a new perspective on the events of 1900 and 1901. It is based on the evaluation of the private correspondence between the siblings of Erich and Armin von Tschermak- Seyseneggs, which remained unknown for many decades.
Keywords: Mendel Laws, 'Rediscovery', classical genetics, Tschermak E., Tschermak A.
Similarly to the recent published correspondence of Francis Crick (Gann, Witkowski, 2010), new facts based on unknown correspondence between the brothers Erich and Armin von Tschermak-Seysenegg [ETS, ATS] might be delivered for another turning point in the history of modern genetics — the "rediscovery" of Mendel's laws at the dawn of the XX century. According to the most popular view, adopted and fostered by almost all textbooks of genetics, Mendel's laws were presented in the first half of annus mirabilis 1900 simultaneously and independently by three European botanists: Hugo de Vries (1848-1935), Netherlands; Carl Correns (1864-1933), Germany; and Erich von Tschermak-Seysenegg (1871-1962), Austria-Hungary (Dunn, 1965, Keller, 2000). The importance ofWilliam Bateson (1861-1926), a leading British botanist of the period, in this process, is stressed as well. In connection with these cumulative events, the term "rediscovery" is often used.
There are two interrelated issues that are essential for reconstructing this process. The first one concerns the independence of research and discovery. In relation to each protagonist
Fig. 1. The siblings Tschermaks, app. 1880s (Photo Archive of Armin v. Tschermak-Seysenegg Jr., Stuttgart) Рис. 1. Братья Чермаки, приблизительно 1880-е годы (Фотоархив Армина фон Чермака-Сейсенетта младшего, Штутгарт)
two questions arise: whether they a) discovered the laws of G.J. Mendel on their own or b) used Mendel's papers to interpret previously obtained results, and with which consequences. Another question is how simultaneous and independent this process in reality was. Especially the latter question touches upon the parallelism of the discovery, and, eo ipso, also later claims of priority and place in the history of modern biology.
Since 1960s serious questions arose concerning both the chronology and the specific conceptual contribution of the scientists involved. The youngest of them, ETS, was even excluded from the rank of "rediscoverers" (Stern, Sherwood, 1956, 1978; Monaghan, Corcos, 1986).
An entirely new aspect must be added by identifying his older brother, the professor of physiology in Halle, Germany, and later in Prague, Bohemia, Armin von Tschermak-Seysen-egg (1870—1952), as a significant spihtus movens of 1900 (and 1901).
Fig. 2. Armin von Tschermak-Seysenegg as an extraordinary professor in Halle, 1901 (Photo Archive of Armin v. Tschermak-Seysenegg Jr., Stuttgart) Рис. 2. Армии фон Чермак-Зейзеиегг в качестве экстраординарного профессора в Галле, 1901 г. (Фотоархив Армина фон Чермака-Сейсенегга младшего, Штутгарт)
Fig. 3. Armin von Tschermak-Seysenegg giving his lecture at the Institute of Physiology of the Faculty of Medicine of the German University in Prague, 1920s (Photo Archive of Armin v. Tschermak-Seysenegg Jr., Stuttgart) Рис. 3. Армии фон Чермак-Сейсеиегг читает лекцию в Институте физиологии Медицинского факультета Немецкого университета в Праге, 1920-е годы (Фотоархив Армина фон Чермака-Сейсенегга младшего, Штутгарт)
In the summer of 2009, a personal collection of ETS held by the Archives of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna was catalogued. At the same time, a large and until that time publicly unknown part of personal possessions of ATS (September 21st, 1870 in Vienna — October 9, 1952 in Bad Wiessee, Germany) was identified and described thanks to the generosity of his grand-son in Stuttgart, Germany Both collections contain correspondence between the two brothers, in all 85 letters, correspondence cards, postcards, and telegrams. They cover the period from 1898 until 1951. Vast majority of the extant correspondence was written and sent from Armin to his brother (81 pieces); only four pieces conversely
There are 14 such pieces sent in the period from March 13th, 1898, until November 19th, 1901 — the important period of the "rediscovery" of the Mendelian laws and its early reception worldwide. This might be seen as the most important part of their mutual correspondence ever (Simunek et al„ 2011a, 2011b).
Fig. 4. Last known common photo of the brothers A.T.S. and E.T.S., 1950 (Photo Archive of Armin v. Tschermak-Seysenegg Jr., Stuttgart) Рис. 4. Последнее известное общее фото братьев Чермак., 1950 (Фотоархив Армина фон Чермака-Сейсенегга младшего, Штутгарт)
Although the existing correspondence is obviously not complete and yet to be analysed in broader context, it is already clear that at the dawn of the 20th century a special line of thought originated in brothers Tschermaks' collaboration. They understood this involvement as the core of "Austrian Mendelian tradition", as they later continuously called it. For both, the starting point of Mendelism around 1900, beside some professional ties of their relatives (e.g. Viennese botanist Eduard Fenzl) to Mendel, was originally the distinction of the values of traits (Unterscheidung der Merkmalwertigkeit) and/or "accordance of certain traits" (Übereinstimmung gewisser Merkmale) (E. Tschermak 1903, 1908, 1913).
On a theoretical level, ATS's contribution concerned both special issues of plant cytology and general interpretation of experimentally obtained results by his brother. His support of the younger brother was especially important when it came to mathematical solutions: "<...> our numerous discussions concerned primarily my work and various issues of heredity. When it came to mathematical problems, I was quite dependent on his [ATS's] guidance, since that was a field where I invariably failed since my earliest youth", stated for example by ETS later in the unpublished version of his memoires1. In another part of the same memoires he even specified: "He read, improved, and completed almost everything I wrote since the age of 28 until the age of 79, and always insisted on reading with me the proof sheets'".
1 Collection of A.T.S. Stuttgart, transcription of E.T.S.'s manuscript 'Mein Bruder Armin' [My Brother Armin], p. 25.
2 Ibid. P. 1.
Commenting the hypothesis of de Vries ATS expressed his views on current research of variation and especially heredity on May 16, 1900 as follows:
The entire theory of heredity needs critical examination. So far [underlined in the original], it offered no proof that a hereditary transfer of traits of, for example, a species or an individual from a parent organism to the offspring takes place in such a way that the differentiation of the former causally determines that of the latter. What is a fact is just the conformity, the sharing of certain traits: one part involves the living substance (the personal part) immediately, the other (germinal) only later, usually only after some infusion of foreign plasmas, after a 'fertilisation'. This conformity may be for the main part related to some particular difference between the cytoplasm and the nucleus <...> (Simuneket al., 2011a, pp. 46—48)
On a practical level of "doing science", including personal ties and tensions, his role was clearly even more significant: he helped design his brother's research schedule, suggested improvements in methodology, reviewed and commented on brother's manuscripts and papers, and where necessary, gained support for their positions within the scientific community (esp. towards C. Correns and H. de Vries).
The brothers' mutual collaboration did not end in 1901. Although they officially never published any joint papers, one could say that after 1900 they jointly tried to write a new chapter in the "further development" (Weiterentwicklung) of "Mendelism". Crucial to this version of Mendelism was their interpretation of the nature and role of the "factors" or "theory of factor" (Faktorenlehre/Elementenlehre) that were later modificated by W. Bateson and other contemporary scientists.
Seeing the role played by ATS in moderating the events of 1900 and 1901, the parallelism aspect of the "rediscovery" story becomes more tangled than previously thought. Based on new available evidence, it also seems likely that the degree of independence between the "rediscov-erers" was much smaller than until now generally assumed.
Since the existing historiography of genetics contains only very limited information about this important representative of continental physiology and medicine of the early and mid-XX century, it would be desirable to include the contribution of a scientist, who was — especially during his stay in Prague from 1913 until 1945 — deeply connected to a prominent tradition in continental European life sciences, established in the Bohemian capital already by Jan E. Purkyne (1787-1869) in the 1850s.
References
Dunn L.C. (1965) Short History of Genetics. The Development of Some of the Main Lines of Thought: 1864-1939, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
GannA., Witkowski J. (2010)"The lost correspondence of Francis Crick", TVature, vol. 467, no. 7315, pp. 519-524.
Keller E.F. (2000) The Centuiyofthe Gene, Cambridge; London: Harvard University Press.
Monaghan F., Corcos A.F. (1896) "Tschermak: a non-rediscoverer of Mendelism, (I, II)", Journal of Heredity, vol. 77, no. 6, pp. 468-469; vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 208-210.
Simunek M.V., HoBfeld U., Thummler F., Breidbach O. (2011a) Mendelian Dioskuri. Correspondence ofArmin with Erich yon Tschermak-Seysenegg, 1898—1951, Praha: USD (Studies in the History of Sciences and Humanities, vol. 27).
Simunek M.V., Hoßfeld U., Wissemann V. (2011b) "'Rediscovery' revised — the cooperation of Erich and Armin von Tschermak-Seysenegg in the context of the 'rediscovery' of Mendel's laws in 1899— 1901", Plant Biology, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 835-841.
Stern C., Sherwood E. (eds.) ( 1956) The Origin of Genetics. A Mendel Source Book, San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Stern C., Sherwood E. ( 1978 ) "A note on the 'three redise overers' of Mendelism", Folia Mendeliana, vol. 13, pp. 237-240.
Tschermak E. v. (1903) "Die Lehre von den formbildenden Faktoren (Variation, Selektion, Mutation, Kreuzung) und ihre Bedeutung für die 'rationelle' Pflanzenzüchtung", Jahrbuch der landwirtschaftlichen Pflanzen- und Tierzüchtung, Bd. 1, H. 3, S. 30—45.
Tschermak E. v. (1908) "Der moderne Stand des Vererbungsproblems", Archiv fiir Rassen- und Gesellschaftsbiologie, Bd. 5, H. 3, S. 307-326.
Tschermak E. v. (1913) "Examen de la theorie des facteurs par la recordisement méthodique des hybrides", in: Vilmorin P., de (ed.): IVe konference international de génétique, Paris, 1911. Comptes rendus rapports, Paris: Masson, pp. 91—95.
Пересмотр "переоткрытия" законов Менделя. Важность Арминафон Чермака-Сейсенегга (1870-1952) —
основной доклад
Михаль Шимунек1, Георгий Левит23, УвеХоссфелд3
1 Центр истории естествознания и гуманитарных наук/Институт современной истории, Академия наук Чешской Республики, Puskinovo nam. 9, CZ-16000 Прага, Чехия;
simunekm@centrum.cz 2 Университет ИТМО, ул. Чайковского. 11, 191187 Санкт-Петербург, Россия; georgelevit@gmx. net; gslevit@c orp. ifmo.ru 3 PL Биологического образования, Йенский университет имени Фридриха Шиллера, Am Steiger 3, Bienenhaus, 07743 Йена, Еермания; uwe.hossfeld@uni-jena.de
Еак называемое «повторное открытие» работы Менделя в 1900 году считается поворотным моментом как в истории биологии, так и в генетике как новой и прогрессивной дисциплине. Эта статья даёт новый взгляд на события 1900 и 1901 гг. Она основана на оценке частной переписки между братьями Эрихом и Армином фон Чермак-Сейсенегг, которая оставалась неизвестной в течение многих десятилетий.
Ключевые слова: законы Менделя, "переоткрытие", классическая генетика, ЧермакЕ., ЧермакА.
ВОСПОМИНАНИЯ И ИНТЕРВЬЮ
История выхода на мировую арену актинофага phiC 31 и актиномицета Streptomyces lividans бб
Н.Д. Ломовская
доктор биологических наук, профессор, Калифорния, США; lomovskayan@gmail.com
Актиномицеты рода Streptomyces образуют большинство антибиотиков и других биологически активных веществ. Актинофаг phiC31 был изолирован в 1968 году в лаборатории генетики актиномицетов и актинофагов в институте генетики и селекции промышленных микроорганизмов в Москве. Там же в течение более чем 20 лет проводилось его генетическое и молекулярно-генетическое изучение. Построение подробных генетических и физических карт генома phiC 31 позволило приступить к конструированию на его основе векторных молекул. Штамм Streptomyces lividans 66 оказался самым оптимальным реципиентом изолированной ДНК и используется в этом качестве во всех лабораториях мира, работающих с актиномицетами. В работах сотрудников института Д. Иннеса (Англия) и в работах лаборатории под руководством автора этих строк были получены фаговые векторы различного назначения, которые в дальнейшем использовались для идентификации генов антибиотикообразования в штаммах — продуцентах антибиотиков.
Ключевые слова: актинофаг phiC 31, Streptomyces lividans 66, Streptomyces coelicolor A3(2), интеграза phiC31, система Pgl.
Посвящаю эту работу памяти Coca Исааковича Али-ханяна, заслуги которого в области микробной генетики и, в частности, генетики и селекции актиномицетов, образующих антибиотики, были широко известны мировой научной общественности. В 2016 году исполнилось сто десять лет со дня его рождения. Кроме С. И. Алиханяна, посвящаю эти воспоминания моим друзьям и коллегам из лаборатории генетики актиномицетов и актинофагов московского института генетики и селекции промышленных микроорганизмов, а также памяти моего мужа Л.М. Фонштейна, внесшего волею судьбы свой значительный вклад в использованиеphiC31 фаговых векторов для идентификации и изучения функций генов антибиотикообразования у актиномицетов.
