|
Correspondence
| LP to Jerry Donohue. December 23, 1952. |
LP's reply - Page 01
|
Authors: Linus Pauling, Jerry Donohue
 LP's reply - Page 01
| Title: |
Linus Pauling's correspondence to Jerry Donohue [1 of 3] |
| Alternative Title: |
Linus Pauling's correspondence to Jerry Donohue, December 23, 1952 |
| Creator: |
Pauling, Linus, 1901- |
| Publisher: |
|
| Date: |
1952-12-23 |
| Subject: |
Chemical bonds Chemical structure Pauling, Linus, 1901- -- Correspondence
|
| Description: |
|
| Type: |
Text |
| Format: |
text/plain |
| Language: |
en |
| Identifier: |
donohue03-pg01.jpg |
| Source: |
Master file format: TIFF, 600 dpi, Epson GT-10000+ flatbed scanner. |
| Rights: |
http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/specialcollections/coll/pauling/dna/copyright.html |
| Full Text: |
Dear Jerry: I am interested to learn about the helix is that you have been working on. Asked to the helix 3.0(10) this is
the one that is described in our paper with Branson, as corresponding to the rotational angle 120 degrees (which gives 3.0
residues per turn), and as having the same orientation as the Alpha helix. Dr. Branson concluded from his very complicated
analytical treatment that the hydrogen bombs are badly bent. Also, the crude model day he made indicated similar bad been
deemed, although our new models showed that this training in the hydrogen bond is small--there is a been deemed by about 40
degrees at the oxygen atom, which, however, is of course allowed. Our van der Waals model indicates that the helix is too
tight, introducing steric hindrance along the axis, but of course van der Waals radii are not very reliable. Also, I am reasonably
assured that this is the structure that Higgins discussed, as having three residues per turn; it is, I think, the one day
he got common at the time of the New York meeting in the fall of 1951 common to beat the Alpha helix. He did not discuss
the Alpha helix. I am sure that the helix 4.4(16) is the one that Barbara Low has described. We had made an investigation
of it, and some months ago I asked Dr. Yankel to calculate its radial distribution function, using the helicometer. I do
not think he has yet made this calculation--he decided to rebuild the helicometer, and has put into operation only recently.
In our considerations about 4.4(16), carried out before we knew it was Barbara Low's structure, we decided that the strain
should be relieved mainly by twisting the amide group from the planar configuration, rather than increasing the Alpha carbon
angle. Probably the strain is relieved partially in each of these places. We have not made in a study of 4.4(14), which
is like the gamma helix, but twisted more tightly. (This series up Alpha helix is has subscript 3n + 4(p) and the series
of gamma helix is has subscript 3n+5.) the amount of strain is so great--use a 7 degrees on the Alpha carbon angle and six
degrees twist of the amide group--that this configuration shed, we think, be ruled out. I think, although I am not sure,
that it is mentioned under the angle 108 degrees in our cable--this corresponds to 3.3(14), but we were putting all of the
strain into the hydrogen bombs. Perhaps 108 degrees represents 3.3(11), with 3.3(14) left out because of its deviation from
our assumed structural features.
|
|