We consider the influence of a terahertz field on the breathing dynamics of double-stranded DNA. We model the spontaneous formation of spatially localized openings of a damped and driven DNA chain, and find that linear instabilities lead to dynamic dimerization, while true local strand separations require a threshold amplitude mechanism. Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication.
Metadata: arXiv. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.
In the conversation
Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels
“DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field” by B. S. Alexandrov, V. Gelev, A. R. Bishop, A. Usheva, K. O. Rasmussen (Submitted on 28 Oct 2009)
"Abstract: We consider the influence of a terahertz field on the breathing dynamics of double-stranded DNA. We model the spontaneous formation of spatially localized openings of a damped and driven DNA chain, and find that linear instabilities lead to dynamic dimerization, while true local strand separations require a threshold amplitude mechanism. Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication."
https://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294
Thanks for bringing the MIT article to my attention. I wouldn't say I referenced the type of radiation, but was just a little less specific. The only source for the article you pointed to (http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294) was a model, not an experiment or test.
Given the potential for DNA damage, though, it would be silly of me not to agree that more research should be done to see whether this model theory of "resonant effects" have any significant real-world impact.
There is extremely glaring factual mistake in this text.
"And guess what wave frequency x-ray backscatter machines use? Hint: THz. http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294
Sorry. You missed by a multiplier of 10000-10000000. X-rays go from tens of petahertz to tens of exahertz.
X-rays have frequencies way above visible light and terahertz waves have frequencies way below visible light. So this is quite glaring error. Is this intentional to increase doubts about x-ray backscattering or just a honest mistake?
Just to clarify for everyone who requires some source for this claim:
"X-radiation (composed of X-rays) is a form of electromagnetic radiation. X-rays have a wavelength in the…
Read the full comment
range of 0.01 to 10 nanometers, corresponding to frequencies in the range 30 petahertz to 30 exahertz (3 × 1016 Hz to 3 × 1019 Hz) and energies in the range 120 eV to 120 keV."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray
[EDIT] Removed few sentences which were written before morning coffee, the post was tad impolite before.