G E O R G E W . BE A D L E

Genes and chemical reactions in Neurospora
Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1958

On this occasion of sharing the high honor of a Nobel Award with Edward
L. Tatum for our" . . . discovery that genes act by regulating chemical
events", and with Joshua Lederberg for his related" . . . discoveries concerning
the organization of the genetic material of bacteria", it seems appropriatethat I sketch briefly the background events that led to the work on Neurospora that Tatum and I initiated in 1940. I shall leave to my co-recipients of
the award the task of describing in detail the developments in Neurosporathat followed our first success, and the relation of this to the rise of bacterial
genetics, which has depended largely on studies of genetic recombination
following conjugation and transduction.
I shall make no attempt to review the entire history of biochemical genetics, for this has been done elsewhere2,13,22,23 .

Soon after De Vries, Correns, and Tschermak "rediscovered" Mendel’s 1865
paper and appreciated its full significance, investigators in the exciting new
field, which was to be called genetics, naturally speculated about the physicalnature of the "elements" of Mendel and the manner of their action. Renamed
genes, these units of inheritance were soon found to be carried in the chromosomes.
One line of investigation that was destined to reveal much about whatgenes do was started by Wheldale (later Onslow) in 1903. It began with agenetic study of flower pigmentation in snapdragons. But soon the genetic
observations began to be correlated with the chemistry of the anthocyanin
and related pigments that were responsible. The material was favorable forboth genetic and chemical studies and the work has continued to yield new
information ever since and almost without interruption. Many workers andmany species of plants have been involved2,4,13,22,23 .
It became clear very soon that a number of genes were involved and that

588

1958 G.W.BEADLE

they acted by somehow controlling the onset of various identifiable andspecific chemical reactions. Since an understanding of the genetics helped ininterpreting the chemistry and vice versa, the anthocyanin work was wellknown to both geneticists and biochemists. It significantly influenced thethinking in both fields, and thus had great importance in further developments.
A second important line of investigation was begun even earlier by the
Oxford physician-biochemist Sir Archibald E. Garrod. At the turn of the
century he was interested in a group of congenital metabolic diseases in man,
which he later named, "inborn errors of metabolism". There are now many
diseases described as such; in fact, they have come to be recognized as a category of diseases of major medical importance.
One of the first inborn errors to be studied by Garrod was alcaptonuria.
Its most striking symptom is blackening of urine on exposure to air. It had
been recorded medically long before Garrod became interested in it andimportant aspects of its biochemistry were understood. The substance responsible for blackening of the urine is alcapton or homogentisic acid (2,5dihydroxyphenylacetic acid). Garrod suggested early that alcaptonuria behaved in inheritance as though it were differentiated by a single recessivegene,
By 1908 a considerable body of knowledge about alcaptonuria had accumulated. This was brought together and interpreted by Garrod in his
Croonian lectures and in the two editions of his book, Inborn Errors of Metab11
olism, which were based on them . It was his belief that alcaptonuria was theresult of inability of affected individuals to cleave the ring of homogentisicacid as do normal individuals. He believed this to be due to absence or inactivity of the enzyme that normally catalyzes this reaction: This in turn wasdependent on the absence of the normal form of a specific gene.
Thus Garrod had clearly in mind the concept of a gene-enzyme-chemical
reaction system in which all three entities were interrelated in a very specificway. In the 1923 edition of "Inborn Errors"11 he wrote:"We may further conceive that the splitting of the benzene ring of homogentisic acid in normal metabolism is the work of a special enzyme, that incongenital alcaptonuria this enzyme is wanting..."Failure to metabolize an intermediate compound when its normal pathway is thus blocked by a gene-enzyme defect was a part of the interpretation
and accounted for the accumulation and excretion of homogentisic acid.
Garrod recognized this as a means of identifying an intermediate com-

GENES AND CHEMICAL REACTIONS IN NEUROSPORA 5 8 9pound that might otherwise not appear in sufficient amounts to be detected.
He also clearly appreciated that alcaptonurics would be used experimentally to explore the metabolic pathways by which homogentisic acid wasformed. He summarized a large body of evidence indicating that when normal precursors of homogentisic acid are fed to alcaptonurics there is an almost quantitative increase in homogentisic acid excretion. In this way evidence was accumulated that phenylalanine, tyrosine, and the keto acid analogue of the latter were almost certainly the direct precursors of homogentisic acid.
Despite the simplicity and elegance of Garrod’s interpretation of alcaptonuria and other inborn errors of metabolism as gene defects which resulted
in inactivity of specific enzymes and thus in blocked reactions, his work had
relatively little influence on the thinking of the geneticists of his time. Bateson’s Mendel’s Principles of Heredity and a few other books of its time discuss
the concept briefly. But up to the 1940’s, no widely used later textbook ofgenetics that I have examined even so much as refers to alcaptonuria. It istrue that a number of other workers had seriously considered that genes
might act in regulating chemical reactions by way of enzymes2,13,17,21,23 .
But there was no other known instance as simple as alcaptonuria. It is interesting - and significant, I think - that it was approximately 50 years after
Garrod proposed his hypothesis before it was anything like fully verified
through the resolution into six enzymatically catalyzed steps of phenylalanine-tyrosine metabolism via the homogentisic acid pathway, and by theclear demonstration that homogentisate oxidase is indeed lacking in the liver17
of an alcaptonuric . Perhaps it is also well to recall that it was not until 1926
that the first enzyme was isolated in crystalline form and shown in a convincing way to consist solely of protein.

I shall now shift to a consideration of an independent line of investigationthat ended up with conclusions very much like those of Garrod and which
led directly to the work with Neurospora that Tatum and I subsequently
began.
In 1933, Boris Ephrussi came to the California Institute of Technology towork on developmental aspects of genetics. During his stay he and I had
many long discussions in which we deplored the lack of information about590

1958 G.W.BEADLE

the manner in which genes act on development. This we ascribed to the factthat the classical organisms of experimental embryology did not lend themselves readily to genetic investigation. Contrariwise, those plants and animals
about which most was known genetically had been little used in studies ofdevelopment.
It would be worth-while, we believed, to attempt to remedy this situation by finding new ways experimentally to study Drosophila melanogaster which, genetically, was the best understood organism of the time. Tissue
culture technics seemed to offer hope. In the spring of 1935 we joined forcesin Euphrussi’s section of l’Institut de Biologiephysico-chimique in Paris, resolved
to find ways of culturing tissues of the larvae of Drosophila.
After some discouraging preliminary attempts, we followed Ephrussi’s
suggestion and shifted to a transplantation technic. It was our hope that inthis way we could make use of non-autonomous genetic characters as ameans of investigating gene action in development.
Drosophila larvae are small. And we were told by a noted Sorbonne authority on the development of Diptera that the prospects were not good. In
fact, he said, they were terrible.
But we were determined to try, so returned to the laboratory, mademicropipettes, dissected larvae, and attempted to transfer embryonic buds
from one larva to the body cavity of another. The results were discouraging.
But we persisted, and finally one day discovered we had produced a fly withthree eyes. Although our joy was great with this small success, we immediately began to worry about three points: First, could we do it again?
Second, if we could, would we be able to characterize the diffusible substances
responsible for interactions between tissues of different genetic types? And,
third, how many non-autonomous characters could we find?
We first investigated the sex-linked eye-color mutant vermilion becauseof the earlier finding of Sturtevant that in gynandromorphs geneticallyvermilion eye tissue often fails to follow the general rule of autonomy20.
Gynandromorphs may result if in an embryo that begins development asa female from an egg with two X-chromosomes, one X-chromosome is lost
during an early cleavage, giving rise to a sector that has one X-chromosome
and is male. If the original egg is heterozygous for a sex-linked gene, sayvermilion, and the lost chromosome carries the normal allele, the male sector will be genetically vermilion, whereas the female parts are normal orwild type. (Other sex-linked characters like yellow body or forked bristles

G E N E S A N D C H E M I C A L R E A C T I O N S I N N E U R O S P O R A 591.

can be used as markers to independently reveal genetic constitution in mostparts of the body.)
Yet in Sturtevant’s gynandromorphs in which only a small part of the
body including ey e ti ssue was vermilion, the appearance of that tissue wasusually not vermilion but wild type - as though some substance had diffusedfrom wild-type tissue to the eye and caused it to become normally pigmented.
It was on the basis of this observation that Ephrussi and I transplanted vermilion eyes into wild-type larvae. The result was as expected - the transplanted eyes were indeed wild type.
At that time there were some 26 separate eye-color genes known in Drosophila. We obtained stocks of all of them and made a series of transplants ofmutant eyes into wild-type hosts. We found only one other clear-cut nonautonomous eye character. This was cinnabar, a bright-red eye color, likevermilion but differentiated by a second chromosome recessive gene. We
had a third less clear case, claret, but this was never entirely satisfactory froman experimental point of view because it was difficult to distinguish claretfrom wild-type eyes in transplants.
The vermilion and cinnabar characters are alike in appearance; both lackthe brown pigment of the wild-type fly but retain the bright-red component. Were the diffusible substances that caused them to develop brown
pigment when grown in wild-type hosts the same or different? If the same,
reciprocal transplants between the two mutants should give mutant transplanted eyes in both cases. If two separate and independent substances wereinvolved, such reciprocal transplants should give wild-type transplanted eyes
in both instances.
We made the experiment and were much puzzled that neither of theseresults was obtained. A cinnabar eye in a vermilion host remained cinnabar,
but a vermilion eye in a cinnabar host became wild type.
To explain this result we formulated the hypothesis that there must be two
diffusible substances involved, one formed from the other according to thescheme: + Precursor +- V+ substance -+ cn+ substance + Pigment.. . where
V+ substance is a diffusible material capable of making a vermilion eye become
wild type, and cn+ substance is capable of doing the same to a cinnabar eyes 9.
The vermilion (v) mutant gene blocks the first reaction and the cinnabar(cn) mutant gene interrupts the second. A vermilion eye in a cinnabar host
makes pigment because it can, in its own tissues, convert the V+ substanceinto cnf substance and pigment. In it, the second reaction is not blocked.

592

1958 G.W.BEADLEThis scheme involves the following concepts:(a) A sequence of two gene-regulated chemical reactions, one gene identified with each.
(b) The accumulation of intermediates prior to blocked reactions.
(c) The ability of the mutant blocked in the first reaction to make use of
an intermediate accumulated as a result of a genetic interruption of the second reaction. The principle involved is the same as that employed in the
cross-feeding technic later so much used in detecting biosynthetic intermediates in micro-organisms.
What was later called the "one gene-one enzyme" concept was clearly in
our minds at this time although as I remember, we did not so designate it.
Ours was a scheme closely similar to that proposed by Garrod for alcaptonuria, except that he did not have genes that blocked an adjacent reactionin the sequence. But at the time we were oblivious of Garrod’s work, partly
because geneticists were not in the habit of referring to it, and partly throughfailure of ourselves to explore the literature. Garrod’s book was available inmany libraries.
We continued the eye-color investigations at the California Institute ofTechnology, Ephrussi having returned there to spend part of 1936. Late in
the year, Ephrussi returned to Paris and I went for a year to Harvard, both
continuing to work along similar lines. We identified the source of diffusible
substances - fat bodies and malpighian tubercules - and began to devise waysof determining their chemical nature. In this I collaborated to some extent
with Professor Kenneth Thimann.
In the fall of 1937 I moved to Stanford, where Tatum shortly joined me totake charge of the chemical aspects identifying the eye-color substances. Dr.
Yvonne Khouvine worked in a similar role with Ephrussi. We made progress slowly. Ephrussi and Khouvine discovered that under certain conditions feeding tryptophan had an effect on vermilion eye color. Following
this lead, Tatum found - through accidental contamination of an aseptic
culture containing tryptophan and test flies - an aerobic Bacillus that converted tryptophan into a substance highly active in inducing formation ofbrown pigment in vermilion flies. He soon isolated and crystallized this, but
its final identification was slowed down by what later proved to be a sucrose
molecule esterified with the active compound.
Professor Butenandt and co-workers6 in Germany who had been collaborating with Professor Kuhn on an analogous eye-color mutant in the meal
moth Ephestia, and Amano et al.1, working at Osaka University, showedGENES AND CHEMICAL REACTIONS IN NEUROSPORA 5 9 3that V+ substance was kynurenine. Later, Butenandt and Hallmann5, andButenandt et al.7 showed that our original cn+ substance was 3-hydroxykynurenine.
Thus was established a reaction series of the kind we had originally conceived. Substituting the known chemical, it is as follows:
H H

Isolating the eye-pigment precursors of Drosophila was a slow and discouraging job. Tatum and I realized this was likely to be so in most cases of594

1958 G.W.BEADLE

attempting to identify the chemical disturbances underlying inherited abnormalities; it would be no more than good fortune if any particular example chosen for investigation should prove to be simple chemically. Alcaptonuria was such a happy choice for Garrod, for the chemistry had been
largely worked out and the homogentisic acid isolated and identified many
years before.
Our idea - to reverse the procedure and look for gene mutations that influence known chemical reactions - was an obvious one. It followed logicallyfrom the concept that, in general, enzymatically catalyzed reactions are genedependent, presumably through genic control of enzyme specificity. Although we were without doubt influenced in arriving at this approach by
the anthocyanin investigations, by Lwoff´s demonstrations that parasites tend
to become specialized nutritionally through loss of ability to synthesize substances that they can obtain readily from their hosts 18, and by the speculations of others as to how genes might act, the concepts on which it was based
developed in our minds fairly directly from the eye-color work Ephrussi andI had started five years earlier.
The idea was simple: Select an organism like a fungus that has simple
nutritional requirements. This will mean it can carry out many reactions bywhich amino acids and vitamins are made. Induce mutations by radiation orother mutagenic agents. Allow meiosis to take place so as to produce sporesthat are genetically homogeneous. Grow these on a medium supplemented
with an array of vitamins and amino acids. Test them by vegetative transfer
to a medium with no supplement. Those that have lost the ability to growon the minimal medium will have lost the ability to synthesize one or moreof the substances present in the supplemented medium. The growth requirements of the deficient strain would then be readily ascertained by a systematic series of tests on partially supplemented media.
In addition to the above specifications, we wanted an organism wellsuited to genetic studies, preferably one on which the basic genetic work had
already been done.

As a graduate student at Cornell, I had heard Dr. B. O. Dodge of the New
York Botanical Garden give a seminar on inheritance in the bread mold
Newospora. So-called second-division segregation of mating types and of albinism were a puzzle to him. Several of us who had just been reviewing theGENES AND CHEMICAL REACTIONS IN NEUROSPORA 5 9 5evidence for 4-strand crossing-over in Drosophila suggested that crossingover between the centromere and the segregating gene could well explain
the result.
Dodge was an enthusiastic supporter of Neurospora as an organism forgenetic work. "It’s even better than Drosophila", he insisted to Thomas Hunt
Morgan, whose laboratory he often visited. He finally persuaded Morgan
to take a collection of Neurospora cultures with him from Columbia to the
new Biology Division of the California Institute of Technology, which heestablished in 1928.
Shortly thereafter when Carl C. Lindegren came to Morgan’s laboratory
to become a graduate student, it was suggested that he should work on thegenetics of Neurospora as a basis for his thesis. This was a fortunate choice, for
Lindegren had an abundance of imagination, enthusiasm and energy and at
the same time had the advice of E. G. Anderson, C. B. Bridges, S. Emerson,
A. H. Sturtevant and others at the Institute who at that time were actively
interested in problems of crossing-over as a part of the mechanism of meiosis.
In this favorable setting, Lindegren soon worked out much of the basic
genetics of Neurospora. New characters were found and a good start wasmade toward mapping the chromosomes.
Thus, Tatum and I realized that Neurospora was genetically an almost idealorganism for use in our new approach.
There was one important unanswered question. We did not know the
mold’s nutritional requirements. But we had the monograph of Dr. Nils
Fries, which told us that the nutritional requirements of a number of related
fiamentous fungi were simple. Thus encouraged, we obtained strains of
Neurospora crassa from Lindegren and from Dodge. Tatum soon discoveredthat the only growth factor required, other than the usual inorganic salts andsugar, was the recently discovered vitamin, biotin. We could not have used
Neurospora for our purposes as much as a year earlier, for biotin would notthen have been available in the quantities we required.
It remained only to irradiate asexual spores, cross them with a strain of the
opposite mating type, allow sexual spores to be produced, isolate them, growthem on a suitably supplemented medium and test them on the unsupplemented medium. We believed so thoroughly that the gene-enzyme reaction relation was a general one that there was no doubt in our minds that wewould find the mutants we wanted. The only worry we had was that theirfrequency might be so low that we would get discouraged and give up before finding one.

596

1958 G.W.BEADLE

We were so concerned about the possible discouragement of a long seriesof negative results that we prepared more than thousand single-spore cultures on supplemented medium before we tested them. The 299th spore isolated gave a mutant strain requiring vitamin B6 and the 1,085th one required
B1. We made a vow to keep going until we had 10 mutants. We soon haddozens.
Because of the ease of recovery of all the products of a single meiotic process in Newospora, it was a simple matter to determine whether our newly
induced nutritional deficiencies were the result of mutations in single genes.
If they were, crosses with the original should yield four mutant and four
non-mutant spores in each spore sac. They did3,21.
In this long, roundabout way, first in Drosophila and then in Neurospora,
we had rediscovered what Garrod had seen so clearly so many years before.
By now we knew of his work and were aware that we had added little ifanything new in principle. We were working with a more favorable organism and were able to produce, almost at will, inborn errors of metabolism for almost any chemical reaction whose product we could supply
through the medium. Thus we were able to demonstrate that what Garrod
had shown for a few genes and a few chemical reactions in man was true formany genes and many reactions in Neurospora.
In the fall of 1941 Francis J. Ryan came to Stanford as a National ResearchCouncil Fellow and was soon deeply involved in the Neurospora work. A
year later David M. Bonner and Norman H. Horowitz joined the group.
Shortly thereafter Herschel K. Mitchell did likewise. With the collaborationof a number of capable graduate students and a group of enthusiastic and able
research assistants the work moved along at a gratifying pace.
A substantial part of the financial support that enabled us thus to expand
our efforts was generously made available by the Rockefeller Foundationand the Nutrition Foundation.
The directions of our subsequent investigations and their accomplishments
I shall leave to Professor Tatum to summarize.

It is sometimes thought that the Neurospora work was responsible for the"one gene-one enzyme" hypothesis - the concept that genes in general havesingle primary functions, aside from serving an essential role in their own

GENES AND CHEMICAL REACTIONS IN NEUROSPORA 5 9 7

replication, and that in many cases this function is to direct specificities of
enzymatically active proteins. The fact is that it was the other way around the hypothesis was clearly responsible for the new approach.
Although it may not have been stated explicitly, Ephrussi and I had somesuch concept in mind. A more specific form of the hypothesis was suggestedby the fact that of all the 26 known eye-color mutants in Drosophila, there
was only one that blocked the first of our postulated reactions and one thatsimilarly interrupted the second. Thus it seemed reasonable to assume thatthe total specificity of a particular enzyme might somehow be derived froma single gene. The finding in Newospora that many nutritionally deficientmutant strains can be repaired by supplying single chemical compounds wasa verification of our prediction and as such reinforced our belief in the hypothesis, at least in its more general form.
As I hope Professor Tatum will point out in detail, there are now known
a number of instances in which mutations of independent origin, all abolishing or reducing the activity of a specific enzyme, have been shown to
involve one small segment of genetic material8,12,24 . To me these lend strong
support to the more restricted form of the hypothesis.
Regardless of when it was first written down on paper, or in what form,
I myself am convinced that the one gene-one enzyme concept was the product of gradual evolution beginning with Garrod and contributed to by many
including Moore, Goldschmidt, Troland, Haldane, Wright, Grüneberg andmany others 2,13,19,22,23 . Horowitz and his co-workers15,16 have given it, inboth forms referred to above, its clearest and most explicit formulation.
They have summarized and critically evaluated the evidence for and against
it, with the result that they remain convinced of its continued value.
In addition Horowitz has himself made an important application of theconcept in arriving at a plausible hypothesis as to how sequences of biosynthetic reactions might originally have evolved14. He points out that many
biologically important compounds are known to be synthesized in a stepwisemanner in which the intermediate compounds as such seem not to serve
useful purposes. How could such a synthetic pathway have evolved if it serves
no purpose unless complete? Simultaneous appearance of several independent enzymes would of course be exceedingly improbable.
Horowitz proposes that the end product of such a series of reactions was
at first obtained directly from the environment, it having been produced
there in the first place by non-biological reactions such as have been postulated by a number of persons, including Darwin, Haldane, Oparin and Urey

598

1958 G.W.BEADLE

and demonstrated by Miller, Fox and others . It is then possible reasonably
to assume that the ability to synthesize such a compound biologically could
arise by a series of separate single mutations, each adding successive enzymatically catalyzed steps in the synthetic sequence, starting with the one immediately responsible for the end product. In this way each mutational step
could confer a selective advantage by making the organism dependent on
one less exogenous precursor of a needed end product. Without some suchmechanism, by which no more than a single gene mutation is required forthe origin of a new enzyme, it is difficult to see how complex synthetic pathways could have evolved. I know of no alternative hypothesis that is equallysimple and plausible.
10

In a sense, genetics grew up as an orphan. In the beginning botanists andzoologists were often indifferent and sometimes hostile toward it. "Genetics
deals only with superficial characters", it was often said. Biochemists likewise
paid it little heed in its early days. They, especially medical biochemists,
knew of Garrods inborn errors of metabolism and no doubt appreciatedthem in the biochemical sense and as diseases; but the biological world wasinadequately prepared to appreciate fully the significance of his investigations
and his thinking. Geneticists, it should be said, tended to be preoccupied
mainly with the mechanisms by which genetic material is transmitted fromone generation to the next.
Today, happily, the situation is much changed. Genetics has an establishedplace in modern biology. Biochemists recognize the genetic material as anintegral part of the systems with which they work. Our rapidly growing
knowledge of the architecture of proteins and nucleic acids-is making it possible - for the first time in the history of science - for geneticists, biochemists,
and biophysicists to discuss basic problems of biology in the common language of molecular structure. To me, this is most encouraging and significant.

GENES AND CHEMICAL REACTIONS IN NEUROSPORA

599

1. T. Amano, M. Torii, and H. Iritani, Med. J. Osaka Univ., 2 (1950) 45.
2. G. W. Beadle, Chem. Rev., 37 (1945) 15.
3. G. W. Beadle and E. L. Tatum, ProC. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S., 27 (1941) 499.
4. G. H. J. Beale, Genetics, 42 (1941) 196.
5. A. Butenandt and G. Hallmann, Z. Naturforsch., 5b (1950) 444.
6. A. Butenandt, W. Weidel, and E. Becker, Naturwiss., 28 (1940) 63.
7. A. Butenandt, W. Weidel, and H. Schlossberger, Z. Naturforsch., 4b (1949) 242.
8. M. Demerec, Z. Hartman, P. E. Hartman, T. Yura, J. S. Gets, H. Ozeki, and S.
W. Glover, Carnegie Inst. Wash. Puhl., No. 612 (1956).
9. B. Ephrussi, Quart. Rev. Biol., 17 (1942) 327.
10. S. W. Fox, Am. Scientist, 44 (1956) 347.
11. A. E. Garrod, Inborn Errors of Metabolism, Oxford Univ. Press, 1923.
12. N. H. Giles, Proc. 10th Intern. Congr. Genet., 1958, Univ. Toronto Press, 1959.
13. J. B. S. Haldane, The Biochemistry of Genetics, Allen & Unwin, London, 1954.
14. N. H. Horowitz, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S., 31 (1945) 153.
15. N. H. Horowitz and M. Fling, in Enzymes (Ed. by O. H. Gaebler), Academic
Press, New York, 1956, p. 139.
16. N. H. Horowitz and U. Leopold, Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol., 16(1951) 65.
17. W. E. Knox, Am. J. Human Genet., 10 (1958) 95.
18. A. Lwoff, L’évolution physiologique, Hermann et Cie, Paris, 1944.
19. H. J. Muller, Proc. Royal Soc. London, B 134 (1947) I.
20. A. H. Sturtevant, Proc. 6th Intern. Congr. Genet., 1(1932) 304.
21. E. L. Tatum and G. W. Beadle, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S., 28 (1942) 234.
22. R. P. Wagner and H. K. Mitchell, Genetics and Metabolism, John Wiley, New York,1955.
23. S. Wright, Physiol. Rev,, 21 (1941) 487.
24. C.Yanofsky, in Enzymes (Ed. by O. H. Gaebler), Academic Press, New York,
1956, p.147.