A brief history of macromolecular crystallography, illustrated by a family tree and its Nobel fruits

Abstract

As a contribution to the celebration of the year 2014, declared by the United Nations to be 'The International Year of Crystallography', the FEBS Journal is dedicating this issue to papers showcasing the intimate union between macromolecular crystallography and structural biology, both in historical perspective and in current research. Instead of a formal editorial piece, by way of introduction, this review discusses the most important, often iconic, achievements of crystallographers that led to major advances in our understanding of the structure and function of biological macromolecules. We identified at least 42 scientists who received Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry or Medicine for their contributions that included the use of X-rays or neutrons and crystallography, including 24 who made seminal discoveries in macromolecular sciences. Our spotlight is mostly, but not only, on the recipients of this most prestigious scientific honor, presented in approximately chronological order. As a summary of the review, we attempt to construct a genealogy tree of the principal lineages of protein crystallography, leading from the founding members to the present generation.

Keywords: history of crystallography; macromolecular crystallography; nobel prizes; structural biology; structural crystallography.

Figure 1.

A family tree of macromolecular crystallographers. The tree includes only a subset of the most notable pioneers of macromolecular crystallography, particularly those mentioned in the article. The “British” and “American” trunks are designated only in order to show the roots, but they do not in any way describe the nationality of the scientists (who may be citizens of a variety of countries, or even have as many as four simultaneous citizenships, making it rather difficult to assign them to a particular region of the world). Mentorship (in solid lines) has to be taken with a grain of salt, since it does not necessarily reflect an official relationship. We aimed to show only the simplest connections to the roots – of course, there were many other interactions among these scientists that could not be indicated here, since that would make the chart impossibly complicated. Dashed lines indicate working together, but not necessarily as a mentor and a mentee.