Great Nikolai Konstantinovich Koltsov

It turned one hundred years since the creation of the Institute of Experimental Biology in Moscow, led by N.K. Koltsov.

The experiments of this researcher led to a world -class discoveries. Before him, scientists believed that cells take their shape depending on the osmotic pressure of the substances contained in them. Koltsov in 1903 came to the conclusion that the shape of the most tender cells supports a solid cellular frame, and proposed the term “cytoskeleton”. The more powerful and branching the various structures of the frame, the greater the shape of the cells departs from the spherical. He studied intracellular cords in many types of cells, investigated their branching, and used chemical methods to identify the stability conditions of the cytoskeleton.

In 1910, specialists of the University of Heidelberg used the Koltsov rule to unicellular organisms. In 1911, a augmented edition of Koltsov’s book on cytoskel in German was published. In the same years, Richard Goldshmidt used the principle of Koltsov’s cytoskeleton to explain the unusual form of nerve and muscle cells, Darcy Thompson described the Koltsov principle in detail in the book “On Form and Growth”, and Max Hertwig, who dedicated the first two chapters of his book to Koltsov’s ideas, put it in the first place among biologists.

But the iron curtain erected by Lenin and Stalin in Soviet times made it almost impossible to travel scientists abroad and performances at international forums; It was difficult to even send an article to the Western edition. Gradually, Koltsov’s principle was forgotten, and in 1931 the French Paul Wintrebert again proposed the term “Cytosquelette). Biologists of our time are convinced that the concept of cytoskel has developed recently.

In January 1906, Koltsov was supposed to defend his doctoral dissertation. However, in December 1905, after a wave of working protests, by a decision of the government, Moscow University was actually occupied by troops. As Nikolai Konstantinovich later recalled, the defense was appointed literally "a few days after the bloody suppression of the December revolution." “I refused to defend the dissertation on such days with closed doors - the students went on strike - and decided that I did not need a doctoral degree,” he wrote. “Later, with my speeches during the revolutionary months, I completely upset relations with the official professor, and the thought of defending the dissertation no longer occurred to me.”

In 1906, Koltsov published a brochure, the purpose and direction of which perfectly reveals the explanation printed on the cover: “In memory of the fallen. Victims from the midst of Moscow Student on October and December days. The income from the publication enters the Committee to help prisoners and amnestied. Price 50 kopecks. Moscow. 1906 ". The brochure was ordered to confiscate, and the author was fired from Moscow University. He began to look for a new place of work.

Back in 1903, Koltsov read the course “Cealing” at the highest female courses of Professor V.I. Gerier, and on April 28, 1909 he began teaching at the Moscow City People's University, which was often called the Shanivsky Private University.

In 1915, the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences invited Koltsov to move to the northern capital, where they were going to elect him an academician and create a biological laboratory. However, Koltsov refused to leave Moscow and was forced to be content with the title of Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences.

In 1916, Koltsov was involved in the creation of a number of research institutes independent of the state for money. In the summer of 1917, a few months before the Bolshevik coup, the Institute of Experimental Biology (IEB) was opened in Moscow, headed by N.K.

For decades, Russian intellectuals have fought against the gendarme attitude of tsarism to the human person. Many of them welcomed the renunciation of the king from power. But the first, the Leninist government pushed the best people of Russia from its first actions. Dissent fell into the category of state crimes. Naturally, supporters of democracy thought how to free the country from the dominance of crazy robespiers and bloodthirsty marats. Groups of people arose who were looking for the feasible and legal ways of the liberation of Russia from the power of the Bolsheviks. In one of them, Koltsov was in leading positions. The National Center - the Chekists called this organization this organization - was disclosed in 1920. N.K. was responsible for the financial side of the work (which means that he was trusted by his friends in the organization). In 1920, all identified conspirators - 28 people, including Koltsov, were arrested. The fact that they gathered in his apartment was also imposed on the professor.

Koltsov was sentenced to death. Fortunately, a close friend Maxim Gorky, who turned directly to Lenin, stood up for him. Thanks to his intercession, the verdict was replaced by five years of imprisonment, and soon Koltsov was completely released, and he returned to lead his institute.

He sought to help the work of scientists throughout the country. He formed laboratories under the Commission on the Study of Productive Forces (KEPS), at the All -Union Institute of Livestock, a biological station in Bakuriani in Georgia, he also helped the development of the Kropotic biological station, then his students created new research centers in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

The Institute of Experimental Biology has acquired a high reputation in the world. In January 1930, Richard Goldshmidt wrote: “I am amazed and still cannot understand my impressions. I saw such a huge amount of young people interested in genetics that we cannot imagine in Germany. And many of these young geneticists are so versed in the most difficult scientific issues as we have only a few quite established specialists. ”

In 1927, Koltsov published a work in which he said that each chromosome contains a giant size of a hereditary molecule that carries genetic notes, and made conclusions about how it can be arranged. He took into account that the genes are located in linear on genetic maps, took into account chemical data on the existence of high molecular weight structures, such as cellulose or proteins, and physical descriptions of crystals growth.

Nikolai Konstantinovich suggested that hereditary molecules should contain two mirror parts and that genes are parts of these molecules (Fig. 1). Thus, the hero of our story developed a new principle of chemistry - the complementarity of threads in two -tanctic structures, supported by contacts between side chemical groups in two threads.

He explained the mechanism for preserving the chemical structure of hereditary molecules in the division of chromosomes, formulating the matrix principle of reproduction of hereditary molecules. “I formulated this thought in the thesis: omnis molecula e molevula, that is, any (of course, complex organic) molecule arises from the surrounding solution only if there is an already finished molecule, and the corresponding radicals are placed by the opposition (van der-vials forces or crystallization forces) for those points of the existing presence and serving The molecule with a molecule where the same radicals lie. ”

In those years when Koltsov growth of these hypotheses, the chemistry of polymers was in its infancy. N.K. It seemed that proteins could be the most suitable for hereditary Molculi. The combination of amino acids via –NH - COOH - connections into polymer structures made it possible to think that it was proteins that could reach a giant length; As an example of Koltsov, he gave a pattern of fibrome proteins (Fig. 2).

He discussed the possibility of constructing hereditary molecules from nucleic acids, but rejected this assumption, since Fybus Levin (Phoebus Levene) published at that time the tetranucleotide theory of the DNA structure, according to which four nucleotides (AGTC) were monotonously repeated in the molecule. Koltsov concluded that in this case, nucleic acids cannot bear genetic notes, since they are “too primitively arranged” and do not satisfy “linguistic requirements”. Later, tetranucleotide theory was refuted.

In general, the considerations of N.K. on hereditary molecules contained the following provisions.

1. In the chromosomes there are giant molecules that carry genetic notes.
2. Genes are segments of hereditary molecules.
3. Each hereditary molecule contains two threads.
4. Each thread carries identical sequences of records, and thanks to this they are complementary.
5. As a result of chemical changes in hereditary molecules, genes mutations occur.
6. Single molecules are used as seeds (matrices) for the synthesis of molecules with identical sequences (records) on them, which ensures the continuity of the structure of genetic material in generations.

In 1928, Koltsov’s article in German was published with further work of the model, in 1935 and 1936 - two in Russian, and a more detailed description was given in his French book in 1939.

The Koltsovskaya hypothesis attracted the attention of specialists. K. Mayer and G. Mark (some of the founders of the polymer chemistry) devoted a noticeable place in their 1930 book to Koltsovsky ideas. Herman Staudinger (who received the Nobel Prize for the development of high molecular weight chemistry in 1953) mentioned more than once. In 1934, Dorothy Urinch published an article in Nature, in which she considered ideas similar to the Koltsovsky.

American geneticist Milislav Demerets (predecessor of James Watson as director Kold Spring of the Harbor laboratory) sent Koltsov on August 27, 1934 the letter I found in the archive of the American philosophical society in Philadelphia. In it, he wrote: “Your idea that a whole chromosome is a large organic molecule and that genes are just the radicals of this molecule is very interesting ... In the lecture that will be published soon, I discuss your assumption.” But the demerean rejected the central part of the Koltsovsky hypothesis that the genes are segments of a giant hereditary molecule. He preferred to think that genes should exist as individual structures: “I doubt, however, that experimental evidence, which suggest that genes have a significant degree of individuality are comparable to your view. It is known that the genes can be transferred from one homologous chromosome to the other by crossingover, that their position inside the chromosome can be changed by inversion, and that their position in the chromosomal complex can be changed by translocation. It is also known that all these changes do not affect the involved genes themselves. ”

However, in 1946, Joshua Lederberg discovered that genes as part of one giant molecules are recombined, that is, they can be transferred from one site to another place of the same molecule. In 1963, G.K. Wighthaus developed a structural theory of recombination of DNA molecules. Thus, the pioneer anticipation of Koltsov was fully confirmed.

In the book "What is life?" Erwin Schrödinger agreed with the thesis that giant hereditary molecules exist (without mentioning the name of Koltsov) and that they can be protein molecules. However, John Burd Sanderson Holdin, to whom Schrödinger attributed this explanation, restored the historical importance of Koltsov’s predictions in a review of the book of Schrödinger in Nature . Holdine pointed out that it was Nikolai Konstantinovich that was the first to “imagine ... the idea ... that the chromosome is a giant molecule ... possessing the properties of a crystal, including the ability to self -reproduction and thus highly complicated structure, which carries a“ encoded recording for the development of the organism ” .

In 1934, Koltsov made another important discovery: T. S. Paner discovered a huge chromosome in the salivary glands of a large -winged insect, and N.K. gave an explanation to the mechanism of their occurrence: during multiple doubling of hereditary molecules, they do not diverge through subsidiaries, and the chromosome thicken (Fig. 3).

The Russian biologist called such chromosomes political (multi -tan ones), this term has strengthened and exists in science so far. At the same time, the length of the chromosomes does not increase, and the thickness due to the lack of newly formed hereditary molecules grow, reaching a giant size. Koltsov described this mechanism in an article published in the American journal Science in the same year. He wrote: “I saw hundreds of drugs of the salivary glands of various Diptera, obtained in the genetic and cytological departments of my institution of experimental biology. Professor G. J. Meller from the University of Texas also showed me a series of very good Drosophila preparations, which had various unusual forms of the X chromosomes. ”

The scientist had another area of ​​interest. At the beginning of the century, he got acquainted with the first works in inheritance of mental abilities in a person and wanted to establish a department of human genetics at the Institute. In 1920, N.K. Koltsov was elected chairman of the Russian Eugenic Society and remained for him until 1929, when, on his initiative, the company ceased its work. Since 1922, he became the editor (since 1924-the co-editor) of the “Russian Eugenic magazine”, in which he published his speech “Improving the Human breed”, uttered on October 20, 1921 at the annual meeting of the Russian Eugenic Society, and the study of the “genealogy of our nominees”.

Later, the politician ideologists of Stalinism used Koltsov’s interest in human genetics against him, called this direction of murdererity, even fascism. However, human genetics are developing intensively, and on its basis new effective methods of treating diseases are developed.

The contribution of Nikolai Konstantinovich to the development of Russian science as a whole would be outlined if his humanitarian activity remained in the shadow. He did a lot not only for female education in Russia. He has repeatedly stood up for the honor and dignity of Russian scientists, unfairly offended, slandered, arrested. And in Soviet times, he did not change his principles.

Koltsov wrote a lot and a lot. To this day, the magazine "Nature" plays an important role in the spread of scientific knowledge, the editor -in -chief of which he was from 1912 to 1930; As an application, he was founded by a series of "classics of natural science." Since 1916, Koltsov edited the “works of the biological laboratory”, then organized the magazines “Izvestia of Experimental Biology” (1921), “Successes of experimental biology” (began to be published in 1922), “Biological Journal” and a number of other publications.

The independent position of Koltsov, not only in science, but also in social activities caused irritation of the authorities. The first to began the vicious fuckers to N.K. The figures from the Society of Biologists-Marxists in March 1931. Koltsov underwent especially embittered public attacks after a discussion about genetics and selection in December 1936. Nikolai Konstantinovich behaved irreconcilably in relation to the Lysenkovites who made attacks on genetics. Understanding what the organizers of the discussion are leaving for, after closing the session he sent a letter to the President of Vaskhnil in January 1937 (copies - the head of the departments of the Central Committee: agriculture - Ya. A. Yakovlev, science - K. Ya. Bauman, press and publishers - B. M. Talya), in which he directly stated that it is to organize such a discussion, it means to patronize lords and demagogues. And this will not bring any benefit to a science or the country.

He pointed out an unacceptable position with the teaching of genetics in universities, having predicted what reduction in the level of knowledge in the country of advice this would lead, and then declared the sedimated text that was generally unthinkable in Soviet conditions, saying that the newspaper Pravda printed a lie about performances at the session: “The newspapers printed biased and often illiterate messages about session meetings. What is worth, for example, a report in Pravda of December 27 ... How do you call such a “ truth ” ? Will it remain uncontrolled? It is necessary to correct the mistakes made. Ведь от получившегося в результате сессии разгрома генетики пострадает, может быть, не один выпуск агрономов… С нас прежде всего спросит история, почему мы не протестовали против недостойного для Советского Союза нападения на науку… Невежество в ближайших выпусках агрономов обойдется стране в миллионы тонн хлеба. А ведь мы не меньше партийных большевиков любим нашу страну и гордимся успехами соцстроительства. Поэтому-то я не хочу и не могу молчать».

Требования остановить Кольцова и отвергнуть его критику прозвучали 26–29 марта и 1 апреля 1937 года на собраниях актива Президиума ВАСХНИЛ. Но Н. К. не испугался и, выслушав многократно повторенные обвинения в свой адрес, попросил слова и без колебаний отверг несправедливые выпады, повторив, что «газеты неправильно информировали о сути происходившей дискуссии. По ним нельзя составить ясного представления о том, что говорилось на сессии» .

В конце заседаний в ВАСХНИЛ он так завершил свое выступление: «Я не отрекаюсь от того, что говорил и писал, и не отрекусь, и никакими угрозами вы меня не запугаете. Вы можете лишить меня звания академика, но я не боюсь, я не из робких. Я заключаю словами Алексея Толстого, который написал их по поводу, очень близкому данному случаю, — в ответе цензору, пытавшемуся запретить печатание книги Дарвина:

Брось, товарищ, устрашенья,
У науки нрав не робкий.
Не заткнешь ее теченья
Никакою пробкой!» .

Полутора неделями позже была опубликована статья Я. А. Яковлева, в которой в резких выражениях генетика была названа фашистской, а Кольцов — «фашиствующим мракобесом… пытающимся превратить генетику в орудие реакционной политической борьбы», и сказано, что генетики «в своих политических целях» якобы «осуществляют фашистское применение „ законов “ этой науки» .

Такого рода нападки были не случайными. Утверждения генетиков, что внешняя среда может изменять наследственность только путем индукции мутаций в наследственных записях, категорически расходились с воззрениями Сталина. Редко возникающие мутации не могли его удовлетворить, так как он был убежден, что правильное — сталинское — воспитание изменит наследственность всего советского народа и последующие поколения будут вести себя по его, сталинским, меркам, что нужно целенаправленно менять условия выращивания растений и животных и создавать скоростными темпами сорта растений и породы животных. А тут эти генетики твердят о консерватизме наследственности и пресловутых генов, которых вовсе нет.

В 1938 году было объявлено о выборах лучших ученых членами Академии наук СССР. В январе 1939 года в «Правде» А. Н. Бах, Б. А. Келлер и шесть примкнувших к ним молодых ученых выступили с заявлением, что Кольцов и Л. С. Берг — выдающийся зоогеограф — не могут быть избраны академиками. Письмо так и было озаглавлено: «Лжеученым не место в Академии наук». После такой статьи ни Кольцов, ни Берг не прошли в академики (последнего избрали в 1946 году), а для разбора дел в кольцовском институте Президиум АН СССР назначил специальную комиссию.

Члены комиссии, включая Лысенко, стали наезжать в институт, беседовали с сотрудниками. В конце концов было назначено общее собрание коллектива института, на котором комиссия собиралась выслушать сотрудников и зачитать свое решение. Ученые института, однако, оказались верны своему директору, и почти никто не сказал и слова осуждения в его адрес. Только двое выступили против Кольцова: заведующий отделом генетики института Н. П. Дубинин, рвавшийся к креслу директора, и человек со стороны, имевший те же цели, — Х. С. Коштоянц (физиолог животных, предпочитавший продвигаться по партийно-общественной линии).

Собрание всецело поддержало Кольцова, что было совершенно удивительным фактом для тех дней: по существовавшим правилам игры осудить Н. К. должен был коллектив, но предателей и слабых духом людей в нем не оказалось. А если колектив этого не сделал, то и формальных оснований у НКВД привлечь Кольцова к уголовной ответственности за вредительство в тот момент не оказалось. Сам Николай Константинович, и на этот раз не отступивший от своей мужественной позиции, выступил на собрании спокойно и без дрожи в голосе произнес то, что в те дни никто говорить в подобных ситуациях не решался.

Он не согласился ни с одним из обвинений, ни в чем себя виновным не признал и не каялся: «Я ошибался в жизни два раза, — сказал он. — Один раз по молодости лет и неопытности неверно определил одного паука. В другой раз такая же история вышла с еще одним представителем беспозвоночных. До 14 лет я верил в Бога, а потом понял, что Бога нет, и стал относиться к религиозным предрассудкам, как каждый грамотный биолог. Но могу я ли утверждать, что до 14 лет ошибался? Это была моя жизнь, моя дорога, и я не стану отрекаться от самого себя».

16 апреля 1939 года Президиум АН СССР снял Кольцова с поста директора института, но оставил его заведующим лабораторией.

В конце ноября 1940 года Кольцов вместе с женой выехал в Ленинград на научную конференцию. Внезапно, без всяких симптомов, которые бы проявлялись раньше, у него случился инфаркт миокарда, а еще через три дня, 2 декабря, в гостинице он скончался.

Его жена записала: «Сейчас кончилась большая, красивая, цельная жизнь. Во время болезни как-то ночью он мне ясно сказал: „Как я желал, чтобы все проснулись, чтобы все проснулись“. Еще в день припадка он много работал в библиотеке и был счастлив. Мы говорили с ним, что мы „happy, happy, happy“».

Этой запиской жена Кольцова завершила и свое пребывание на земле. Без мужа она не видела смысла в существовании и в тот же день оборвала свою жизнь. Академик АМН СССР И. Б. Збарский в книге «Объект № 1» заявил, что Кольцов был, видимо, отравлен чекистами сердечным ядом, подсыпанным в бутерброд.

* * *

Спустя три четверти века после смерти Н. К. Кольцова ученые пришли к его принципу цитоскелета вторично. За работы по строению клеток Кристиана де Дюва, Альберта Клода и Георга Паладе в 1974 году наградили Нобелевской премией. Идея двойной структуры наследственных молекул была предложена Н. К. четвертью века ранее модели двойной спирали ДНК Джеймса Уотсона и Фрэнсиса Крика, заслужившей Нобелевскую премию в 1962 году (и хотя Уотсон уверял меня несколько раз в 1988–2000 годах, что они с Криком ничего не знали о модели Кольцова, у меня есть сомнения на этот счет).

Совпадающие с кольцовскими представления Артура Корнберга о механизмах копирования ДНК в процессе их удвоения (репликации) и выделение им ДНК-полимеразы 1 были отмечены Нобелевской премией в 1959 году. Россия утеряла свой приоритет в науке в этих направлениях именно потому, что коммунисты помешали работе Кольцова, запретили ему контакты с Западом при жизни, зачеркнули его имя в своей стране после внезапной смерти.

А ведь природа вакуума не терпит. Без продолжения работ школы Кольцова, без появления статей в зарубежной литературе, в которых исследователи упоминали бы имя автора исходных идей, не только идеи, но и его имя остались известны только историкам биологии.

Памятника Николаю Константиновичу Кольцову в Москве до сих пор нет.

Валерий Сойфер,
американский биофизик и историк науки, докт. физ.-мат.наук,
почетный профессор МГУ, Казанского и Ростовского университетов