Correspondence

LP to Jerry Donohue. December 23, 1952.

LP's reply - Page 02

< Previous Page     LP's reply - Page 01

Back to Document Index LP to Jerry Donohue

Next Page > LP's reply - Page 03

Title:	Linus Pauling's correspondence to Jerry Donohue [2 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-pg02.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:	Asked to your publishing a description or discussion of these, I would say that it might be well worth while or a complete discussion to be published, about all the alpha helixes (N(3n +4) and all of the gamma helixes (N (3n+5)). I would say that an effort should be made to find the best configuration for each of these, dividing the strain among the different structurals features in a way that minimizes the strain energy. In my paper for the ninth Solvay Congress, which should be available soon (Bragg will have a copy, probably in about a month, or I can send you part of the manuscript), van der Waals interactions--at any rate van der Waals attraction. I think that it is van der Waals repulsion, steric hindrance, that might be the hardest to take into consideration. I would say that the time is pass now for piecemeal discussion of the structures. Of the three that you mentioned 4.4(14), which is probably the worst of the group, it is the only one that has. I doubt the discussion of these three structures is worth a letter to the J.A.C.S.-that is, I think that a more detailed discussion should be published, at some time, rather than a letter. Since so much discussion of polypeptide chains has been published in the proceedings up the National Academy of Sciences, I suggested to consider submitting a paper Der-that is compensating the manuscript to me to be submitted to the proceedings. Your paper could be up to six printed pages long. Why don't you consider expanding, to include all the alpha helixes that are all reasonable, and all the gamma helixes that are all reasonable? I think that it would be fine for you to publish radial distribution curves, in each case with two alternative positions or the beta carbon atom, unless one is clearly ruled out by steric hindrance, as it seems to be for 3.0(10). Riley is pointed out that our radial distribution curs for the off the helix are not very accurate. I haven't tracked down the air, but I think that we may have smooth the points out a bit too much. The might check with Riley and Arnold rather than with us, to see whether you get agreement for the alpha helix. Dr. Corey and I have been rather disturbed by the delay in publishing our communication to nature about the structure of the alpha keratin proteins. I wrote the editors of nature onto October, saying that we were anxious to have our manuscript publish quickly, and asking if nature would be interested. The editors replied at once that they would be, and we submitted the manuscript on 14 October, eight days before Crick's manuscript was submitted. I have now written the editors asking what has gone wrong, and saying that it seems to me that the editorial policy should have led to the publication of the two communications and the same issue nature, or that, at any rate, no one was submitted earlier should not be published at a considerably later time. Dr. Corey and I are hoping that ours will not be delayed so long that it will have a 1953 date.