I am sorry to be so long to send this back to you, but there were a half-dozen other mss. of a longer backlog that had accumulated
and needed very detailed review. And I'm afraid I can't put more than an hour or two a day in this kind of work without
tiring. But I'm glad to at least have gotten to see it before we take off for Japan tomorrow.
This is certainly a worthwhile contribution, and there could be no doubt about its value for publication in Genetics or J.
Bact. But PNAS has been growing so large that we have been asked to be very careful in communicating papers by other authors,
and it does seem to me that the interest in this report would be more specialized then, e.g., your initial report on Salmonella
crossing or the paper with Thurmur et al. on the pycnography of the hybrid DNA. In any case, there is now an 8 page limit
for PNAS. So on several counts I think this might better go to Genetics or J. Bact. And what's against that?
I'm a little puzzled about calling the fragment F0 lac+; which might imply that it confers the F0. It seems to behave
rather like F13 except for its stability (not reverting to F+) and restricted extent. But the particle must confer conjugability
and some the f+ antigen. If there is any argument for the F0 notation for incompatible F-, there is no point confusing that
issue with a similar designation for an F-related particle. Re Hirota, see Smith's review in Br. Med. Bull 18(1): 41