This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Hershey–Chase experiment | |
|---|---|
| Title | Hershey–Chase experiment |
| Caption | Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase |
| Date | 1952 |
| Place | Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory |
| Participants | Alfred Hershey, Martha Chase |
| Field | Molecular biology, Genetics |
Hershey–Chase experiment The Hershey–Chase experiment (1952) provided decisive evidence that DNA—rather than Proteins—is the hereditary material responsible for transmitting genetic information in bacteriophages, influencing research at institutions such as Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Carnegie Institution and Rockefeller University. Conducted by Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase using the bacteriophage T2 system, the work contributed to the molecular biology revolution alongside contemporaneous studies like the Avery–MacLeod–McCarty experiment and informed interpretations made by researchers at Cambridge University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard University.
The question of whether DNA or Proteins carried genetic information engaged scientists across multiple centers including Johns Hopkins University, University of Cambridge, University of Chicago, and University of California, Berkeley. Prior contributions from Oswald Avery, Colin MacLeod, Maclyn McCarty, and the Avery–MacLeod–McCarty experiment suggested a role for DNA, while proponents of protein heredity included researchers influenced by work at Rockefeller University, Columbia University, Yale University, and laboratories led by figures like Severo Ochoa and Arthur Kornberg. Structural data from James Watson, Francis Crick, Rosalind Franklin, and Maurice Wilkins at King's College London and Cavendish Laboratory strengthened the DNA hypothesis and set the stage for experiments at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Hershey and Chase used bacteriophage T2 to infect Escherichia coli cultures maintained in facilities including Brookhaven National Laboratory and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. They exploited radioactive isotopes—[^35S] to label Proteins and [^32P] to label DNA—techniques developed in laboratories like Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and practiced by specialists at University of California, San Francisco and University of Pennsylvania. The experiment combined methods from virology practiced at National Institutes of Health, centrifugation technology refined at MIT, and bacteriology techniques taught at Stanford University School of Medicine. After allowing phage attachment, the researchers used a kitchen-style blender to shear phage coats—a step informed by mechanical disruption methods used in laboratories at University of Michigan and University of Wisconsin–Madison—followed by differential centrifugation to separate bacterial cells from phage ghosts, leveraging equipment akin to ultracentrifuges designed at Beckman Instruments.
Radioactive assays conducted with counting equipment comparable to instruments at Los Alamos National Laboratory and analytical practices from Scripps Research revealed that most of the [^32P] label entered the Escherichia coli cells while the [^35S] remained in the supernatant with phage coats; similar experimental logic had earlier been used by investigators at MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology and Pasteur Institute. The successful transmission of hereditary traits in progeny phage correlated with the presence of [^32P] in infected cells, mirroring conclusions drawn by groups at University of California, Los Angeles, University of Toronto, and University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign that linked nucleic acids to genetic continuity.
The interpretation—that DNA is the material of heredity—reshaped agendas at major centers including Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Rockefeller University, MIT, and institutions across Europe such as École Normale Supérieure and Max Planck Society laboratories. This result influenced the careers of figures at Harvard University, University of Cambridge, Caltech, and Princeton University and provided empirical support for the Watson–Crick model of DNA structure produced in collaboration with researchers at King's College London. It catalyzed developments in molecular genetics, impacting initiatives at National Institutes of Health, the emergence of biotechnology firms in regions like Cambridge, Massachusetts and Silicon Valley, and informed policy discussions at bodies such as the National Academy of Sciences.
Multiple groups replicated and extended the Hershey–Chase approach in laboratories including Brookhaven National Laboratory, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Pasteur Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University, Yale University, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Salk Institute, Rockefeller University, Stanford University, MIT, Harvard University, University of Cambridge, Max Planck Institute, CNRS, University of Toronto, University of Chicago, Princeton University, Caltech, University of Michigan, University of Pennsylvania, University of California, San Diego, University of Oxford, Imperial College London, ETH Zurich, Karolinska Institute, Weizmann Institute of Science, Tokyo University, Seoul National University, Peking University, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Australian National University, University of Melbourne, McGill University, University of British Columbia, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, University of Göttingen, University of Leiden, University of Amsterdam, University of Copenhagen, and University of Helsinki. Follow-up studies on phage genetics and molecular replication were advanced by researchers like Max Delbrück, Salvador Luria, Hermann Joseph Muller, François Jacob, Jacques Monod, Har Gobind Khorana, Marshall Nirenberg, Stanley Cohen, and Herbert Boyer.
Debates around technical details and interpretation engaged scientists at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Rockefeller University, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, and Brookhaven National Laboratory. Criticisms centered on potential contamination, isotopic labeling specificity, and mechanical shear efficacy—issues discussed in correspondence among investigators at Harvard University, Columbia University, Yale University, and Johns Hopkins University. Later biochemical and molecular studies at MIT, Caltech, University of Cambridge, Max Planck Institute, Salk Institute, and Pasteur Institute refined understanding of viral assembly, DNA injection mechanisms, and protein–nucleic acid interactions, addressing limitations noted by teams that included members from University of California, San Francisco, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Rockefeller University, and Weizmann Institute of Science.