DNA is NOT a helix

[Rusty Cooper]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:04:00 -0600, Jim Hu <jimhu at tamu.edu> wrote:

>
>
>biegel at concentric.net wrote:
>
>> I am new to user groups, and I hope therefore that this message reaches
>> someone who is interested.  I seek a brave person with a DNA laboratory.
>>
>> I can prove that Form I DNA (i.e., "CCC" or covalently closed circular,
>> duplex DNA) from native sources is generally NON-helical.
>>
>> Actually, this has been proven twice before, therefore I should say rather
>> that I can prove DEFINITIVELY that native circular DNA is NOT, topologically
>> speaking, a helix.
>
>.<snipped>....Why do I get the feeling that this is going to hinge on whatever
>the strict topological definition of a helix is?
>

BINGO!!!  I was just curious if this guy would ever respond so that I
could find that out for myself.

RC
________________________________________________

Want more from your time online, like some cash?

Try these:

- http://www.getpaid4.com/?jwps3
- http://www.valuepay.com/ref.asp?re=jwps3
- http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=HED306
- http://www.paidforsurf.com/index.asp?refid=jwps3
- http://www.bepaid.com/users.rhtml?REFID=10334919
- http://www.utopiad.com/member/getPaid?refId=288529  
- http://www.spedia.net/cgi-bin/dir/tz.cgi?run=show_svc&fl=8&vid=505405