Skip to main contentU.S. National Library of MedicineU.S. National Library of Medicine


Profiles in Science
   
Pinterest badge Follow Profiles in Science on Pinterest!

The Joshua Lederberg Papers

Title:
Letter from Joshua Lederberg to Louis S. Baron pdf (79,007 Bytes) transcript of pdf
Letter from Joshua Lederberg to Louis S. Baron
Description:
Item is handwritten.
Number of Image Pages:
1 (79,007 Bytes)
Date:
1962-04-05 (April 5, 1962)
Creator:
Lederberg, Joshua
Recipient:
Baron, Louis S.
United States Department of the Army. Walter Reed Army Medical Center
Rights:
This item is in the public domain. It may be used without permission.
Relation:
Lederberg Grouping: Correspondence D
Box Number: 15
Folder Number: 118
Unique Identifier:
BBAGQY
Accession Number:
12
Document Type:
Letters (correspondence)
Language:
English
Format:
application/pdf
image/tif
Physical Condition:
Good
Series: Correspondence, 1935-2002
SubSeries: 1961-1978
Folder: Baron, Louis S.
Transcript:
April 5, 1962
Dear Lou--
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 (Jan. '62).
Out best to Rhoda and yourself,
Joshua
Metadata Last Modified Date:
2011-07-28
Linked Data:
RDF/XML     JSON     JSON-LD     N3/Turtle     N-Triples