Talk:Erwin Chargaff

Chargaff died Monday, January 17, 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.152.224 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Middle name

In many of the older revisions, I found that someone put a middle name in the infobox: Erwin Achim Chargaff, Erwin Holly Chargaff, Erwin Holy Chargaff, or even, most creatively, Erwin Fart Chargaff. Yes, really. Of all of these, Achim was the only one seeming halfway plausible, and the only one I found in other sources, but they may have copied it from Wikipedia. Contemporary sources call him just Erwin. In his papers he is called just Erwin. In all likelihood, his name was just Erwin. If someone inserts another name without a seriously convincing source, it's most likely vandalism. Shinryuu (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Old discussions

I want to know more about Erwin Chargaff, about his live what he found out? how he is successful in his life basically a lot about his biography.

Hope these changes help. Jon the Geek 04:07, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Why are there so many curse words and why is Edwin presented in an unfavorable light?

Why is Chargaff remembered in an unfavorable light? It is likely because he became so bitter. Watson and Crick got all the glory and Chargaff missed out. In the 80's he gave a talk at Harvard Medical School. The title of the talk was something like, "Fraud in Science" but may as well have been, "I'm Bitter". Paul 13:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Edwin?

Why is there a redirect to here from Edwin Chargaff? Was it a pseudonym or something? The article makes no mention. —Frungi 01:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

An editor created an article with Chargaff's name misspelled as "Edwin". When this was discovered, the misspelled name was redirected here rather than deleted. This is a common practice which allows other users to find the correct article. --Blainster 18:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Percentages

In human DNA, for example, the four bases are present in these percentages: A=30.9% and T=29.4%; G=19.9% and C=19.8%. Is this an average or a constant? —Frungi 01:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As close to a constant as you can get. Each organism has a different percentage. Herpes virus is higher GC contant making it harder to sequence. Yeast is higher AT.

Individual humans have many mutations but this would not cause the percentage to deviate much at all. A trisomy of the X and Y chromosome would change it slightly but only if the overall percentage is much different between the X and Y chromosome.

In short, it's a constant with very slight variation. MBCF 06:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I propose to delete the sentence

"A connection between the Fibonacci numbers and Chargaff's second parity rule in the human genome which seems to be an evidence that there is no such thing as "garbage" DNA has been proposed.[2]"

as well as the reference that comes along, as I don't think this adds anything but a non-validated theory with poor scientific evidence. Different species have different genomes, therefore their GC/AT content might differ. Different individuals form a given have similar genomes, but with only low differences (mutations, etc.) therefore their GC/AT might be a little different, but in a much much less extent to those of 2 individuals from different species. AND THAT HAS NOTHING to do with Fibonacci numbers... And from the history point of view, I assume that the 2nd rule of Chargaff was in no way opening the path to this Fibonacci story. Hope this helps, I delete the sentence. Jerome Samson 17:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a little question

(Sorry for asking things like this, but) I'm curious: why should we call him an AUSTRIAN? If someone was born in Austria-Hungary those days, do we automatically call that person an Austrian?? (No matter he was Hungarian/Polish/Slovakian/Ukrainian/Jewish/German/Austrian/whatsoever?) I would also like to know more about his life, if anyone knows some good sources, send me, please! Thank you! Myrmeleon formicarius 15:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

217.82.172.152 (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC) MarcoP Berlin

I think Chargaff's rule has been used to distinguish human from non-human remains

...since there is a known ratio of amino acids G-A-C-T. I don't have a source. It would be applicable to foresics and archeology. --Javaweb (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Erwin Chargaff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050515083436/http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/mole/c/chargaff.htm to http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/mole/c/chargaff.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)