Reminds me of a joke playing off that from this Lego Star Wars cartoon I watched as a kid. C-3PO is trying to find where Anakin wandered off to on Tatooine, and comes across basically a bartender who has security footage of someone that looks *vaguely* like Anakin (though extremely blurry as it's on a CRT with average security camera). C-3PO tells the proprietor to zoom and enhance. The proprietor says he can't do that. C-3PO *insists* that he zoom and enhance, so the proprietor grabs his head and shoves it against the screen for him to watch it up *very* close. Surprisingly, this works out well for Threepio.
We still lack the angstrom resolution to visualize DS-DNA. Good spot on it being supercoiled. The space between peaks on the edge and the angle of the turns indicate that they’re wrapped around histones.
*This very much looks*
*Supercoiled. How thick is the*
*Strand in the picture?*
\- Silt99
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Thank you, Similar_Outside3570, for voting on haikusbot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Coiled is literally one syllable. You do not say coil-uhed. It’s pronounced like koyld. You can put any English word in Google and add “pronunciation” and it will give you the breakdown into syllables, the actual audio and even lip movement, in British and American
Not coil-uhed lol. Coil alone is two syllables, unless you mush mouth it all to hell. The sound the word “coy” makes is already present, and then you add another syllable in adding the L.
I’m quite comfortable if everyone else disagrees with me on this. Yall are already wrong about so much, what’s one more thing.
Id guess if its many molecules close together and we use electromagnetics for imaging they get hard to distinguish because they interfere with each other...
The techniques we use to image atoms won't be effective on organic molecules because they tend to break apart from the force of attraction of the top of the sensing device used for atomic imaging
I don’t know about DNA specifically, but for most biological anything the sample can’t be prepared the same way you prepare non-biological samples. If we took biomolecules and prepared them the same way we do atomic samples, they dehydrate and denature so badly that they lose their structure. Then there’s no point in visualizing them.
So the technique to see atoms in decent detail is called STM (scanning tunneling electron microscopy) and it only works on metals
The next step up where you can kinda see atoms on the pixel level is TEM, (transmission electron microscopy) but the beam is so powerful it basically destroys all organic samples. You can kinda get around this by freezing a thin slice (cryo-TEM) but the resolution goes down a lot. I'm suspect the image above is probably cryo-TEM
Most inorganic imaging is done with SEM (scanning electron microscopy) that destroys organic stuff unless it's coated in a metal layer. And most cellular imagine is still done with optical microscopy (like confocal)
I wonder how a DNA sample would fare in SEM if coated with gold or something. I guess the vacuum environment you need did physical vapor deposition would destroy the DNA
Yeah you need vacuum to actually deposit gold so it's not gonna happen. But larger objects are usually ok. I've seen a house fly sputtered with gold and imaged with SEM
Yeah I meant the kind that measures tunnel current as the atomic resolution one. Does it have a different acronym? (It's the only one I haven't actually used, just read about)
Edit: ok yeah it is called Scanning Tunneling Electron Microscopy but the abbreviation is STM
https://afm.oxinst.com/modes/scanning-tunneling-microscopy-stm#:~:text=Scanning%20Tunneling%20Microscopy%2C%20or%20STM,Gerd%20Binnig%20and%20Heinrich%20Rohrer.
We can see molecules of DNA with other techniques. Rosalind Franklin took "photographs" of the helix back in the 60's. But she used a technique called "X-ray crystallography" while OP's photo appears to be an actual microscope photo, presumably some sort of electron microscope.
The X-ray technique is good for determining the structure of a molecule, but it doesn't produce a literal image of the molecules in the same way that a microscope can more literally provide. Idk enough about X-ray crystallography to explain more, but it's just a matter of different tools for different purposes.
I mean, at that scale the definition of "see" and "picture" gets blurry. In itself, X-ray diffraction give is basically how the material distorted the frequency of the rays to create different wave functions that interfere with each other. I would argue that while it is a measurement of the structure, you don't really "see" it. You could argue that TEM neither since we don't use photon and that's true because charge of the DNA will probably affect very much the "picture".
We can not see atoms really, on that small of a scale we *detect* atoms
We can not really find them with photons but we can move super precise machines to see where specific atoms are by their nuclei repelling each other
Electron force microscopes experience the interatomic forces from both Pauli exclusion and Coulomb repulsion. Coulomb repulsion is still mediated by virtual photons as excitations of the electromagnetic 4-potential, they're just off-shell. So technically we are still using photons.
It’s the difference between seeing something through a microscope and detecting something on a sonar. If you had a ship showing up on your sonar nobody would say they can see a ship and nobody can see a ship, just that one is showing up on sonar.
It's just a different microscope. I've used electron microscopes and it can feel the same as an optical microscope in transmission or reflection mode. The only difference is the particle they use
To ‘see’ anything is to pick up some thing that bounced off of it. Typically, that thing is light, but it could really be anything that ‘bounces’ off stuff and can be collected.
The smaller the thing is, the smaller the thing we bounce off of it needs to be, to still get a clear picture. You wouldn’t bounce orange-sized objects off of a golf ball and expect to get a good picture of it.
So, to see atoms, we need stuff that’s REALLY small. X-rays are pretty small, but that smallness imparts high energy to it. So, unfortunately, while X-rays are definitely small enough a thing to bounce off atoms to ‘see’ them, they’re ALSO high enough energy to actually mess up (ionize) the molecular structure of what you might be bouncing it off to look at.
So while you can get a great look at individual atoms (where you don’t really have to worry about messing up a hyper-complex 3D structure), capturing the DS in DNA (without interrupting it with whatever you bounce off of it) is really fucking hard.
The only way to ‘see’ such highly ordered 3D things with X-rays is to pack a bunch of them tightly into a crystal first, which is really fucking hard. I’ve heard colleagues describe it as ‘like trying to stack drops of water’. However, this is still the gold standard for determining the structures of most biomolecules, which is fucking bonkers to me.
Don’t come at me X-ray crystallographers, cryo-EM is just better.
The type of microscope used is different. For atoms and subatomic particles we whip out the big guns, but for anything larger we just gotta use fancier and fancier regular microscopes and hope they weren't a waste of money.
DNA is a macromolecule of smaller subsidiary micormolecules, such as purines, pyrimidines, and phosphate deoxy ribose. What we are observing is a visible image a chunk of a DNA strand, with each red arrow pointing out one of the links of DNA, that is a base pair attached to the deoxyribose back bone. The individual atoms, the carbon, oxygen, etc, are way too small to be seen with light.
Another means to view them is an electron microscope which basically uses tiny magnets to gauge what the atomic composition of something is, and then we can render that into an image. This is how we can see ever further than regular microscopy.
Global military spending reallocated to humanitarian and scientific efforts starting in 1945 would have probably gotten us to the centre of the Milky way by now
And at war with everyone and losing because it’s now every man for himself. But seriously they gotta give more money to NASA. The US literally gives less than 1% of there funds to NASA.
Serious question here, is that really a picture of DNA? It’s the x-ray diffraction pattern of crystallized DNA, but it’s not what the DNA would like close up. That’s why the first people who saw that picture weren’t able to say what DNA looked like after seeing it.
Apparently Watson only recognized it as showing a helix because he had previously read a paper (by Crick) showing what the x-ray diffraction pattern of a helix would look like.
I guess, what does it mean to be a picture of something?
In a sense, x-ray diffraction images are what you would see through a microscope if it was missing the refocusing lenses. So in a sense it’s a very blurry image. We need a large set of pictures from different angles to mathematically assemble a 3D image of it (this is what the refocusing lens in a microscope does, but with just one angle).
So no, they didn’t know how exactly how DNA looked like, but this technique could yield a 3D if you’re able to collect more data :)
No no, this is a routine method in biosciences. We’ve had atom-level resolution images of DNA for decades. It’s standard practice to record any new protein found e.g. in human cells alongside their respective x-ray structure in public databases.
So this EM picture you see in the post is perhaps groundbreaking for that method (electron microscopy), but not for general structure biology :)
I'm curious now. Why is the image blurry anyway? I'm sure it has something to do with either diffraction or whatever the electron microscope equivalent of diffraction is.
At some point you have to define what "seeing" actually means. And where the difference between "seeing" as visual and "seeing" as seeing the result of measurements is.
Very good point. We’ve had X-ray crystallographic images of DNA for decades, at orders of magnitude higher resolution. But these images are calculated from hundreds of diffraction images, giving it less of a “seeing” vibe, although the physical process is the same as seeing through a microscope… just replacing the refocusing lens with a bunch of maths…
How are we able to do genetic analysis? Like when looking for genetic diseases, etc. some sort of equipment reads the DNA instead of an actual scientist physically seeing it?
The sequencers I'm familiar with attach fluorescent labels to individual nucleotides which are then imaged one base pair at a time using laser excitation.
Yup, most sequencers use some form of fluorophore excitement to infer the bases. There are others that use binding to know probe sequences and knowledge of specific gene linkage and recombination rates to deduce genotype (if you've done a commercial DNA kit this is the method mostly used). There are also more experimental methods that use the electromagnetic variation the bases produce as they pass through a pore.
Nanopore is the electromagnetic variation. Illumina is flurophore excitation. Both cool in their own way, lasers and good camera vs electromagnetic shenanigans.
It’s kinda funny how people go crazy about electron microscopy images of DNA when X-ray crystallographic images of DNA at Angstrom-level resolution were possible even before we even knew what DNA was.
Well i looked at this image under a microscope directed at my phone with this picture zoomed to maximum
There are 3 thing's i have learned in my experament
-it worked
-dna seems to be made of... dried custard?
-Im not a real scientist
Absolutely astonishing!
AFM can quite routinely image DNA to see the major and minor grooves, but does that count as seeing or feeling?
Sauce: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21243-y
“Zoom & Enhance,… enhance more”
Reminds me of a joke playing off that from this Lego Star Wars cartoon I watched as a kid. C-3PO is trying to find where Anakin wandered off to on Tatooine, and comes across basically a bartender who has security footage of someone that looks *vaguely* like Anakin (though extremely blurry as it's on a CRT with average security camera). C-3PO tells the proprietor to zoom and enhance. The proprietor says he can't do that. C-3PO *insists* that he zoom and enhance, so the proprietor grabs his head and shoves it against the screen for him to watch it up *very* close. Surprisingly, this works out well for Threepio.
I did … and saw the faces of hell ….
Zoom out just a tad
"Enhance AGAIN"
Enhance again... now dehance.
Uncrop
This just reminds me of futurama. Lol
*Scientists hate this one trick*
This very much looks supercoiled. How thick is the strand in the picture?
We still lack the angstrom resolution to visualize DS-DNA. Good spot on it being supercoiled. The space between peaks on the edge and the angle of the turns indicate that they’re wrapped around histones.
Yeah this is clearly 30nm fiber, the "beads on a string" conformation.
Reminds me of a wound guitar string
*This very much looks* *Supercoiled. How thick is the* *Strand in the picture?* \- Silt99 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
good bot
Thank you, Similar_Outside3570, for voting on haikusbot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Good bot
good bot
good bot
5-8-5 not a haiku I never saw this bot get it right
Supercoiled is three syllables. “Su-Per-Coiled”
Maybe because you don't know how to read?
I don't get this bot.
I hate that this comment got downvoted. Like what did they even say that was so bad?
[удалено]
No, they didn't Edit: they may have edited the comment, but it already got a few more downvotes so it doesn't matter anyway
Me neither can someone explain what a haikus is?
First five syllables Then you put in seven more Then another five
No haiku bot when you make an actual haiku?
I'm pretty sure when you break it up and make it clear you meant to do it, it doesn't trigger. But I'm no botologist.
It's a type of poetry made of three lines, containing 5, 7 and 5 syllables, respectively
Not a haiku, 4-8-5, failure, bad bot!
this-ve-ry-much-looks 5 syllables
And su-per-coiled-how-thick-is-the You don’t read it as coil-ed
I might appear really stupid, but I had to sound “coiled” out numerous times because I was convinced it was two syllables.
Coil is already two syllables, unless you Southern mush mouth it in to one.
Coiled is literally one syllable. You do not say coil-uhed. It’s pronounced like koyld. You can put any English word in Google and add “pronunciation” and it will give you the breakdown into syllables, the actual audio and even lip movement, in British and American
To be fair, I sound it out more like “coi-uhld” but today I learned
Not coil-uhed lol. Coil alone is two syllables, unless you mush mouth it all to hell. The sound the word “coy” makes is already present, and then you add another syllable in adding the L. I’m quite comfortable if everyone else disagrees with me on this. Yall are already wrong about so much, what’s one more thing.
I think you are confusing syllables with phonemes
That’s what I thought until I googled it
All I can find are Reddit posts or random unofficial looking “how many syllables” websites, so I reject their answers.
Aussie here - coil is monosyllabic.
Sure, if you mush mouth it in to “coal”
It’s not “mush mouthing” it where we live. Coil is not pronounced “COY-al”. Coal and coil are literally pronounced in the same way: kōl, koyl.
than bowl of cold oatmeal my friend.
Hiw can we see atoms but not molecules of DNA? I know this post is old bc of the award in the Screenshot but still
Id guess if its many molecules close together and we use electromagnetics for imaging they get hard to distinguish because they interfere with each other...
The techniques we use to image atoms won't be effective on organic molecules because they tend to break apart from the force of attraction of the top of the sensing device used for atomic imaging
I don’t know about DNA specifically, but for most biological anything the sample can’t be prepared the same way you prepare non-biological samples. If we took biomolecules and prepared them the same way we do atomic samples, they dehydrate and denature so badly that they lose their structure. Then there’s no point in visualizing them.
Technically, we DON'T see atoms since they're 99.999999% empty space. You're staring at a whole lot of nothing pretending to be something.
Sounds like me watching my friends trying to score at the bar.
Boom… roasted
You know what they say about birds of a feather lol
Atoms are truly the masters of "fake it until you make it"
I love this comment.
I think they might be referring to images of individual atoms themselves not our own normal sight.
Just like this comment
So the technique to see atoms in decent detail is called STM (scanning tunneling electron microscopy) and it only works on metals The next step up where you can kinda see atoms on the pixel level is TEM, (transmission electron microscopy) but the beam is so powerful it basically destroys all organic samples. You can kinda get around this by freezing a thin slice (cryo-TEM) but the resolution goes down a lot. I'm suspect the image above is probably cryo-TEM Most inorganic imaging is done with SEM (scanning electron microscopy) that destroys organic stuff unless it's coated in a metal layer. And most cellular imagine is still done with optical microscopy (like confocal)
I wonder how a DNA sample would fare in SEM if coated with gold or something. I guess the vacuum environment you need did physical vapor deposition would destroy the DNA
Yeah you need vacuum to actually deposit gold so it's not gonna happen. But larger objects are usually ok. I've seen a house fly sputtered with gold and imaged with SEM
STEM is scanning *transmission* electron microscopy. Tunnelling microscopy requires an atomic probe tip. This image looks like a TEM or STEM image.
Yeah I meant the kind that measures tunnel current as the atomic resolution one. Does it have a different acronym? (It's the only one I haven't actually used, just read about) Edit: ok yeah it is called Scanning Tunneling Electron Microscopy but the abbreviation is STM https://afm.oxinst.com/modes/scanning-tunneling-microscopy-stm#:~:text=Scanning%20Tunneling%20Microscopy%2C%20or%20STM,Gerd%20Binnig%20and%20Heinrich%20Rohrer.
We can see molecules of DNA with other techniques. Rosalind Franklin took "photographs" of the helix back in the 60's. But she used a technique called "X-ray crystallography" while OP's photo appears to be an actual microscope photo, presumably some sort of electron microscope. The X-ray technique is good for determining the structure of a molecule, but it doesn't produce a literal image of the molecules in the same way that a microscope can more literally provide. Idk enough about X-ray crystallography to explain more, but it's just a matter of different tools for different purposes.
Just like different types of world maps are used for different purposes. Some display proportions better and some are better navigational references.
I mean, at that scale the definition of "see" and "picture" gets blurry. In itself, X-ray diffraction give is basically how the material distorted the frequency of the rays to create different wave functions that interfere with each other. I would argue that while it is a measurement of the structure, you don't really "see" it. You could argue that TEM neither since we don't use photon and that's true because charge of the DNA will probably affect very much the "picture".
We can not see atoms really, on that small of a scale we *detect* atoms We can not really find them with photons but we can move super precise machines to see where specific atoms are by their nuclei repelling each other
Electron force microscopes experience the interatomic forces from both Pauli exclusion and Coulomb repulsion. Coulomb repulsion is still mediated by virtual photons as excitations of the electromagnetic 4-potential, they're just off-shell. So technically we are still using photons.
You can say that about anyone. Our eyes don't see objects we detect them with precise organs
It’s the difference between seeing something through a microscope and detecting something on a sonar. If you had a ship showing up on your sonar nobody would say they can see a ship and nobody can see a ship, just that one is showing up on sonar.
It's just a different microscope. I've used electron microscopes and it can feel the same as an optical microscope in transmission or reflection mode. The only difference is the particle they use
To ‘see’ anything is to pick up some thing that bounced off of it. Typically, that thing is light, but it could really be anything that ‘bounces’ off stuff and can be collected. The smaller the thing is, the smaller the thing we bounce off of it needs to be, to still get a clear picture. You wouldn’t bounce orange-sized objects off of a golf ball and expect to get a good picture of it. So, to see atoms, we need stuff that’s REALLY small. X-rays are pretty small, but that smallness imparts high energy to it. So, unfortunately, while X-rays are definitely small enough a thing to bounce off atoms to ‘see’ them, they’re ALSO high enough energy to actually mess up (ionize) the molecular structure of what you might be bouncing it off to look at. So while you can get a great look at individual atoms (where you don’t really have to worry about messing up a hyper-complex 3D structure), capturing the DS in DNA (without interrupting it with whatever you bounce off of it) is really fucking hard. The only way to ‘see’ such highly ordered 3D things with X-rays is to pack a bunch of them tightly into a crystal first, which is really fucking hard. I’ve heard colleagues describe it as ‘like trying to stack drops of water’. However, this is still the gold standard for determining the structures of most biomolecules, which is fucking bonkers to me. Don’t come at me X-ray crystallographers, cryo-EM is just better.
The type of microscope used is different. For atoms and subatomic particles we whip out the big guns, but for anything larger we just gotta use fancier and fancier regular microscopes and hope they weren't a waste of money.
They probably mean optically. So without SEM. Not sure how a SEM works on organic materials - don’t think it works.
I'd guess the posting is wrong
DNA is a macromolecule of smaller subsidiary micormolecules, such as purines, pyrimidines, and phosphate deoxy ribose. What we are observing is a visible image a chunk of a DNA strand, with each red arrow pointing out one of the links of DNA, that is a base pair attached to the deoxyribose back bone. The individual atoms, the carbon, oxygen, etc, are way too small to be seen with light. Another means to view them is an electron microscope which basically uses tiny magnets to gauge what the atomic composition of something is, and then we can render that into an image. This is how we can see ever further than regular microscopy.
I think the technique used to "see" atoms only works on atoms
Just put the camera closer to the carpet
if we took the progression rate for biochemical science and applied it to space exploration we would have colonized mars and the moon.
I'll do u one better. All money going to military spending, we'd be in Alpha Centauri by now
drones atleast
Global military spending reallocated to humanitarian and scientific efforts starting in 1945 would have probably gotten us to the centre of the Milky way by now
But we’re too tribal sadly. Stupid monkes
Ape together strong
And at war with everyone and losing because it’s now every man for himself. But seriously they gotta give more money to NASA. The US literally gives less than 1% of there funds to NASA.
But old men care more about their dicks than mars
I mean, I would argue [this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_51) is the closest we can see DNA
Serious question here, is that really a picture of DNA? It’s the x-ray diffraction pattern of crystallized DNA, but it’s not what the DNA would like close up. That’s why the first people who saw that picture weren’t able to say what DNA looked like after seeing it. Apparently Watson only recognized it as showing a helix because he had previously read a paper (by Crick) showing what the x-ray diffraction pattern of a helix would look like. I guess, what does it mean to be a picture of something?
In a sense, x-ray diffraction images are what you would see through a microscope if it was missing the refocusing lenses. So in a sense it’s a very blurry image. We need a large set of pictures from different angles to mathematically assemble a 3D image of it (this is what the refocusing lens in a microscope does, but with just one angle). So no, they didn’t know how exactly how DNA looked like, but this technique could yield a 3D if you’re able to collect more data :)
Super cool. Thanks for the explanation.
I assume these are large hurdles or they would have already done this
No no, this is a routine method in biosciences. We’ve had atom-level resolution images of DNA for decades. It’s standard practice to record any new protein found e.g. in human cells alongside their respective x-ray structure in public databases. So this EM picture you see in the post is perhaps groundbreaking for that method (electron microscopy), but not for general structure biology :)
Woahhhh!!!!!!
Exactly what I was thinking - I googled it myself because I wasn't sure if I was misremembering what the photo looked like. I wasn't.
Maybe check your screen resolution settings?
Oh my god, is that!? . . . Diffraction 👁️👄👁️|||||||||||
I'm curious now. Why is the image blurry anyway? I'm sure it has something to do with either diffraction or whatever the electron microscope equivalent of diffraction is.
this repost is so old that it still has fucking awards
I’d double tap that!
It's really cool that we've gone from DNA as a theory to even a blurry photo of it in the span of humanity.
*insert Drake and Lil Yachty laptop gif here*
“Enhance!”
Just zoom in and screenshot and repeat till u can see all the way
Enhance, enhance!
If they have video of it they can use frame interpolation upscaling…
At some point you have to define what "seeing" actually means. And where the difference between "seeing" as visual and "seeing" as seeing the result of measurements is.
Very good point. We’ve had X-ray crystallographic images of DNA for decades, at orders of magnitude higher resolution. But these images are calculated from hundreds of diffraction images, giving it less of a “seeing” vibe, although the physical process is the same as seeing through a microscope… just replacing the refocusing lens with a bunch of maths…
Life hack: hold the phone closer to your face.
This is intriguing. Nanobots of life now seen through the lens of tech.
How are we able to do genetic analysis? Like when looking for genetic diseases, etc. some sort of equipment reads the DNA instead of an actual scientist physically seeing it?
The sequencers I'm familiar with attach fluorescent labels to individual nucleotides which are then imaged one base pair at a time using laser excitation.
Yup, most sequencers use some form of fluorophore excitement to infer the bases. There are others that use binding to know probe sequences and knowledge of specific gene linkage and recombination rates to deduce genotype (if you've done a commercial DNA kit this is the method mostly used). There are also more experimental methods that use the electromagnetic variation the bases produce as they pass through a pore.
Yeah oxford nanopore does that I think.
Nanopore is the electromagnetic variation. Illumina is flurophore excitation. Both cool in their own way, lasers and good camera vs electromagnetic shenanigans.
ENHANCE
[where's my Nobel Prize?](https://freeimage.host/i/Jbv6yxe)
https://y.yarn.co/d5037db5-bd9b-4a77-b5e0-eaabf2bd1477_text.gif
My precious tubes!
Thats a darn good idea
Zoom zoom
I see it. G A T T A C A
Ancestors lined up.
Clever.
Thats screwy!
*tweaks a few base pairs by mistake and turns into a chimpanzee*
I would like to postulate him as the next Nobel prize for his revolutionary method that allows scientists to observe DNA way closer than before.
lol what am i looking at fr
It’s kinda funny how people go crazy about electron microscopy images of DNA when X-ray crystallographic images of DNA at Angstrom-level resolution were possible even before we even knew what DNA was.
All they need to do is clean the lens with t-shirt
Impressive , are we capable of changing dna yet ????or still we don't have the tech ??
well i seen someone coding dna live on youtube, we capable of doing it on jellyfish and some more simple one
It’s a TEM (Transmission Electron Microscope) image. That is some serious resolution; we’re talking 1-100nm scale.
Looks like soldiers marching
I’m surprised were this close
Zoom and screenshot and then zoom that screenshot and keep doing it
Well i looked at this image under a microscope directed at my phone with this picture zoomed to maximum There are 3 thing's i have learned in my experament -it worked -dna seems to be made of... dried custard? -Im not a real scientist Absolutely astonishing!
AFM can quite routinely image DNA to see the major and minor grooves, but does that count as seeing or feeling? Sauce: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21243-y
ENHANCE
I can see the AT GC base pairs from here!