Jacques Dubochet, Joachim Frank and Richard Henderson win the 2017 Nobel prize in chemistry – as it happened

Last modified: 11: 36 AM GMT+0

This year’s prize has been awarded for developing cryo-electron microscopy for the high resolution structure determination of biomolecules in solution

And that’s a wrap!

There we have it, Crispr and lithium-ion batteries lose out to cryo-electron microscopy, a technique that has allowed scientists to study molecules in unprecedented resolution – an advance that could help with drug discovery and fundamental understanding of biological processes.

Congratulations to the three winners Jacques Dubochet, Joachim Frank and Richard Henderson.

You can read our news story on the prize here. An article delving further into the science behind the win will follow shortly.

Today’s win underscores an important point, Venkatraman Ramakrishnan tells me.

“It shows the value of patiently supporting basic science for decades,” he says. But, he adds, what started in basic science has led to incredible revelations. “By the time it has got to this stage, it’s already being used by drug companies to do structures of important drug targets, and it is used to understand fundamental biology that can change medicine in the future- so it just goes to show you how all these things are linked.”

Updated

It turns out not everyone is thrilled by today’s announcement:

I didn't get the chemistry nobel. 😕

— Professor Spooky (@Tim_H) October 4, 2017

Those who contest that the winners have taken the prize for biochemistry, rather than chemistry, here’s a fun fact: 50 of those who have scooped the award actually work(ed) in biochemistry, making it the most common field for laureates of this prize.

Here’s a description of the prize-winning work from the Nobel committee:

A picture is a key to understanding. Scientific breakthroughs often build upon the successful visualisation of objects invisible to the human eye. However, biochemical maps have long been filled with blank spaces because the available technology has had difficulty generating images of much of life’s molecular machinery. Cryo-electron microscopy changes all of this. Researchers can now freeze biomolecules mid-movement and visualise processes they have never previously seen, which is decisive for both the basic understanding of life’s chemistry and for the development of pharmaceuticals.

Electron microscopes were long believed to only be suitable for imaging dead matter, because the powerful electron beam destroys biological material. But in 1990, Richard Henderson succeeded in using an electron microscope to generate a three-dimensional image of a protein at atomic resolution. This breakthrough proved the technology’s potential.

Joachim Frank made the technology generally applicable. Between 1975 and 1986 he developed an image processing method in which the electron microscope’s fuzzy twodimensional images are analysed and merged to reveal a sharp three-dimensional structure.

Jacques Dubochet added water to electron microscopy. Liquid water evaporates in the electron microscope’s vacuum, which makes the biomolecules collapse. In the early 1980s, Dubochet succeeded in vitrifying water – he cooled water so rapidly that it solidified in its liquid form around a biological sample, allowing the biomolecules to retain their natural shape even in a vacuum.

Following these discoveries, the electron microscope’s every nut and bolt have been optimised. The desired atomic resolution was reached in 2013, and researchers can now routinely produce three-dimensional structures of biomolecules. In the past few years, scientific literature has been filled with images of everything from proteins that cause antibiotic resistance, to the surface of the Zika virus. Biochemistry is now facing an explosive development and is all set for an exciting future.

Updated

Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, president of the Royal Society, said he was delighted by the news. “There is no question – this is a very well deserved prize,” he said.

Ramakrishnan shared the Nobel prize in chemistry in 2009.

Updated

While this year’s laureates are worthy winners, they haven’t broken the record for age: the youngest chemistry laureate remains Frédéric Joliot, Marie Curie’s son-in-law, who shared the prize with his wife, Irene, in 1935. Joliot was 35.

John Hardy, professor of neuroscience at University College London, said that cryo-electron microscopy has also proven valuable in unpicking the structure of the enzyme that produces amyloid proteins that are involved in Alzheimer’s disease. That, he adds, could aid the design of drugs to tackle the disease.

“And as a biologist, I can say that the pictures are beautiful,” he said.

Updated

Dr Carsten Sachse, of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory used to work with Richard Henderson at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge. He tells the Guardian that Henderson was an inspiring person to work with.

“He was really visionary, he saw it all coming. When I worked with him, that was a time when it was not clear how far the technology really would go, but he had it all worked out in his head,” said Sachse.

Updated

Reaction continues to come in. Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz, professor of mammalian development and stem cell biology at the University of Cambridge, said that she thought the win was wonderful. “A visual image is the essential component to understanding, often the first one to open our eyes – and so our minds – to a scientific breakthrough.”

Updated

Dame Athene Donald, professor of experimental physics at the University of Cambridge said that cryo-electron microscopy has made a huge difference, allowing biological molecules to be studied at extremely high resolution.

“The only talk I remember from the first electron microscopy conference I attended during my PhD was by Nigel Unwin and Richard Henderson on purple membrane. It was stunning work. It’s a long time ago but it’s brilliant to see the developments finally be rewarded by this year’s award,” she said.

Updated

Joachim Frank tells the press conference that the coolest molecules he has seen using the technique of cryo-electron microscopy are ribosomes, the protein factories of cells. The technique, he says, has allowed scientists to explore the details of how amino acids are put together to form proteins.

Updated

Barry Fuller, professor in surgical sciences at University College London Medical School, said that it was important not to get confused by the “cryo” side of the work, and that it was not directly linked to efforts to preserve cells and tissues.

While the molecules are “frozen in time”, he noted, there is no ice or antifreeze involved – instead the technique uses ultra-ultrafast cooling.

“But to turn this on its head, understanding configurations and stability of biomolecules at cryogenic temperatures will always improve the efforts of cryobiolgy,” he said.

Updated

Turns out you’re unlikely to be able to use a cryo-electron microscope in your garden shed. The equipment is not only expensive, it is enormous – three or four times human height.

Updated

More reaction: Dame Carol Robinson, professor of chemistry at the Oxford University, described cryo-electron microscopy as “transformative” in allowing scientists to see new images of important biological molecules.

“I am personally very happy for Richard, who predicted this would be possible many years previously,” she said.


Updated

Dr Stuart Cantrill, chief editor of the journal Nature Chemistry says that the award this year will be a surprise for many, with lithium-ion batteries and Crispr gene editing once again missing out. But, he says, it is a worthy win.

“There will be the usual chorus of ‘this isn’t chemistry, this is biology’, but cryo-electron microscopy is an analytical technique that can reveal the structure of the molecules of life in exquisite detail,” said Cantrill. “And this kind of knowledge is what enables scientists to better understand how these living systems operate at the molecular level – and if we’re talking about atoms and chemical bonds, that is without a doubt ‘chemistry’ even if it’s within a biological setting.”

Updated

Responding to a question about prizes going to scientists for technological wins ...

“I do think that deciding between a particular discovery and a technological breakthrough – I would always think the impact is probably much larger for the technological breakthrough,” said Frank.

Updated

Joachim Frank says he thought that chances of winning a Nobel Prize was “minuscule” because there are so many innovations and developments “that happen every day”. He was left speechless, he says.

Updated

As Oliver Fuchs points out, the CV of Jacques Dubochet is well worth a gander ...

The CV of the Swiss #NobelPrize-Laureate at @unil, Jacques Dubochet, is really funny. https://t.co/4DyUo6Ojjy pic.twitter.com/wzyTSd7NwG

— Oliver Fuchs (@oliphox) October 4, 2017

Updated

This work has received a number of nods from the scientific community. Richard Henderson was last year’s recipient of the Royal Society’s Copley Medal – the world’s oldest scientific prize.

Updated

Swedish television has just asked Joachim Frank to explain the usefulness of his technique. “The practical use is immense,” he says. But it takes time for fundamental research to impact on medicine, he adds.

The image shows the power of the technique. Cryo-electron microscopy has enabled unprecedented resolution to be achieved.

Being able to freeze molecules and image them doesn’t just tell us about their structure, but the images can be “put together like in a movie” allowing processes to be probed, we are told.

It’s a clean sweep for men this year: nine out of nine have been won by male scientists.

Americans have done pretty well this year: seven of the nine science prizes have gone to researchers from the US.

Jacques Dubochet, however, is from the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, while Richard Henderson is Scottish and works at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK.

Updated

The development of cryo-electron microscopy has proved crucial for many areas of research, not least in looking at the Zika virus which causes brain-damage in newborns.

Updated

The work that the trio carried out has allowed scientists to freeze biomolecules to look at their structures and the processes they are involved in.

The citation reads that the trio scooped the prize “for developing cryo-electron microscopy for the high-resolution structure determination of biomolecules in solution”.

And the winners are...

BREAKING NEWS The 2017 #NobelPrize in Chemistry is awarded to Jacques Dubochet, Joachim Frank & Richard Henderson. pic.twitter.com/RUZSnArJHO

— The Nobel Prize (@NobelPrize) October 4, 2017

Here it comes! It’s about imaging the molecules of life ...

Updated

Another cheeky tweet from the committee!

Who is receiving a call from Secretary General Göran K. Hansson and Committee Chairman Sara Snogerup Linse? #NobelPrize #Chemistry pic.twitter.com/z2qQN3L4Hx

— Vetenskapsakademien (@vetenskapsakad) October 4, 2017

A hush has fallen... just waiting for the committee to enter the room.

Here we go, an announcement has been made that all is running to time. It’s T-5 minutes!

A scene from inside the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences ...

The usual scrum inside the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, ahead of the announcement of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. pic.twitter.com/5R1XE8W4AE

— UllaEngbergRS (@UllaEngbergRS) October 4, 2017

The livestream has started from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm. Right now it is journalists milling about and having a chat. Fans of The Bridge – now’s your chance to brush up your Swedish.

Alfred Nobel, whose legacy established the awards, was a chemist himself who, like his father, had a penchant for explosives – in particular nitroglycerine. In 1867 he patented dynamite – an invention that was to make him a fortune.

But not everything went smoothly. In 1864 an explosion at at one of the factories killed several people, including his little brother Emil. The upshot was that for some time Nobel was unable to experiment in Stockholm itself, and had to move his operations to a barge.

For those who miss out today, take heart. Many worthy scientists never win a Nobel. Among those to miss out on the honour was Dmitri Mendeleev who formulated the period table.

While Mendeleev was nominated, the influential scientist Svante Arrhenius argued against the win – rumour has it he was miffed about Mendeleev taking issue with one of his theories.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences are gearing up for the announcement. Here’s a bit of trivia from them:

The decision has been made! These voting tokens are used when Academy members make the final decision about who receives a #NobelPrize pic.twitter.com/rootZa5QzV

— Vetenskapsakademien (@vetenskapsakad) October 4, 2017

Another chemist who has been tipped for the prize this year is Harry B Gray from Caltech for his work on electron-transfer reactions, and the different factors that affect their rates. Electron transfer reactions underpin all manner of biological processes – including photosynthesis.

So far there have been 108 Nobel prizes for chemistry, awarded to 175 scientists since 1901. Only four have been women, two of whom were mother and daughter: Marie Curie, who won the prize solo in 1911 (and previously shared the prize for physics in 1903), and her daughter Irène Joliot-Curie who shared the prize in 1935 with her husband Frédéric.

Following Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin’s solo win in 1964, it was 45 years before another woman was awarded the prize: in 2009 Ada Yonath shared the Nobel for her work on ribosomes.

So far all of the 2017 science laureates have been men – will chemistry buck the trend?

More trivia for you: most chemistry Nobel laureates celebrate their birthday in June.

Unfortunately, most people born in June do not win a Nobel prize.

While there are many contenders for today’s prize, it’s unlikely to go to someone who has scooped the award before.

In fact only one Nobel laureate has won the prize for chemistry twice: Frederick Sanger, who bagged it in 1958 and 1980. The first time he won the award solo for his work on the structure of insulin, the second time he scooped it for his research on DNA sequencing, but shared it with Paul Berg and Walter Gilbert.

The 2016 Nobel prize in chemistry

Last year, the chemistry Nobel went to a trio of chemists, Sir Fraser Stoddart, Jean-Pierre Sauvage and Ben Feringa, who developed the field of molecular machines – tiny nanoscale systems ingeniously constructed to allow components to move.

The work could lead to new types of sensors and switches, offer fresh opportunities for drug delivery and open up the field for novel materials.

Runners and riders

With researchers from a wide range of fields having previously scooped the Nobel prize for chemistry, the award can be something of a wildcard.

Once again, pundits have suggested that the scientists behind the gene-editing tool known as Crispr could be in with a chance, with Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier potential laureates. Others, however, say that it is too soon, with controversy around the technology adding a further hurdle to the prize.

Others think it more likely that Stanley Whittingham and John Goodenough might scoop the prize for their work on the lithium–ion battery.

Unlike the physics prize yesterday, today’s announcement is far from a shoo-in.

And we're off!

Welcome to day three of the Nobel prize announcements.

Yesterday, three American scientists won the 2017 Nobel prize in physics for research that led to the first observations of gravitational waves – a breakthrough Prof Olga Botner, a member of the Nobel committee for physics, described as “a discovery that shook the world”.

If you want a sense of the painstaking efforts behind the win, here’s one of yesterday’s newly minted laureates, Rainer Weiss, on the herculean task:

It’s as long as 40 years of people thinking about this, trying to make a detections, sometimes failing … and then slowly but surely getting the technology together to be able do it.”

This morning, it’s the winners of the chemistry prize who will be revealed – although it could well be molecular biologists or geneticists that scoop the award.

We’re expecting the name(s) to be announced at 10.45am UK time, from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm.

Do join us for the live announcements, explanations of the research, and reaction from the winners and others from the world of science.

Contributor

Nicola Davis

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
Jean-Pierre Sauvage, Bernard Feringa and Sir Fraser Stoddart win Nobel prize in chemistry - as it happened
The 2016 Nobel prize in chemistry has been awarded for the design and synthesis of molecular machines - the ‘world’s smallest machines’

Nicola Davis and Ian Sample

05, Oct, 2016 @2:06 PM

Article image
Nobel prize in chemistry awarded for pioneering work on proteins – live
Americans Frances H Arnold and George P Smith and Briton Gregory P Winter will share the prize of 9m Swedish kronor (£770,000)

Ian Sample Science editor

03, Oct, 2018 @11:25 AM

Article image
What is cryo-electron microscopy, the Nobel prize-winning technique?
The 2017 chemistry laureates were recognised for developing cryo-electron microscopy. But what is it, why is it exciting and where will it take us next?

Nicola Davis

04, Oct, 2017 @3:32 PM

Article image
'Nano-machines' win European trio chemistry Nobel prize
Jean-Pierre Sauvage, Sir Fraser Stoddart and Bernard Feringa will share prize for their design and synthesis of the ‘world’s smallest machines’

Hannah Devlin

05, Oct, 2016 @9:59 AM

Article image
Nobel prize in chemistry awarded for method to visualise biomolecules
Jacques Dubochet, Joachim Frank and Richard Henderson receive £825,000 prize for developing method for generating 3D images of life-building structures

Hannah Devlin and Nicola Davis

04, Oct, 2017 @11:00 AM

Article image
Nobel prize in chemistry awarded for development of lithium-ion batteries – as it happened
John B Goodenough, M Stanley Whittingham and Akira Yoshino made laureates for development that sparked portable technology revolution

Hannah Devlin

09, Oct, 2019 @11:26 AM

Article image
Nobel prize in chemistry awarded for work on lithium-ion batteries
John B Goodenough, M Stanley Whittingham and Akira Yoshino honoured for sparking a portable technology revolution

Nicola Davis and Hannah Devlin

09, Oct, 2019 @3:19 PM

Article image
Frances H Arnold, George P Smith and Gregory P Winter win Nobel prize in chemistry
Briton and two Americans honoured for using evolutionary principles to develop proteins that have been used in new drugs and medical treatments

Nicola Davis

03, Oct, 2018 @12:25 PM

Article image
Three ‘click chemistry’ scientists share Nobel prize
Carolyn Bertozzi, Morten Meldal and double winner Barry Sharpless devised way to click molecules together

Ian Sample Science editor

05, Oct, 2022 @10:13 AM

Article image
Scientists whose work enabled mRNA Covid vaccine win medicine Nobel prize
Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman share £823,000 prize announced by Nobel Assembly at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm

Linda Geddes Science correspondent

02, Oct, 2023 @12:17 PM