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 Francis J. Ryan to Joshua Lederberg pdf (295,929 Bytes) transcript of pdf
Letter from Francis J. Ryan to Joshua Lederberg
Description:
Item is handwritten.
Number of Image Pages:
4 (295,929 Bytes)
Date:
1946-05-22 (May 22, 1946)
Creator:
Ryan, Francis J.
Recipient:
Lederberg, Joshua
Rights:
Reproduced with permission of Elizabeth J. Ryan.
Relation:
Lederberg Grouping: Correspondence A
Box Number: 6
Folder Number: 53
Unique Identifier:
BBGCOK
Accession Number:
82
Document Type:
Letters (correspondence)
Language:
English
Format:
application/pdf
image/tif
Physical Condition:
Good
Series: Correspondence, 1935-2002
SubSeries: 1925-1947
Folder: Ryan, Francis J.
Transcript:
5/22/46
Dear Josh --
Wilson informs me that our reprint order has been increased to 500. The Dept. will buy for us 125, 25 of which we must give them. The remaining 375 we'll have to buy ourselves. All will be with covers. A reprint without a cover comes apart too fast.
Did you see the paper in Trans. NY Acad Sci. about cancer as a cellular adaptation? Its [sic] not inconsistent with your ideas.
Before I forget the beer list had your name next to 4 bottles which were crossed out. Bertha said you never paid her. Did you leave the dough with me or someone
[END PAGE ONE]
[BEGIN PAGE TWO]
else?
PNAS fixed up the errors in our paper and I presume will charge them to us. I'll see what the Dept. will do. I thought we had talked over the position effect possibility. As I remember we decided that when you start to consider very small inversions and duplications you get into the problem of just what is the "true" or point mutation -- submicroscopic or unobservable inversions or duplications? I think there is a real point here because we have preconceived and undemonstrated notions about another type of change involving what we glibly call gene (molecular) alterations. I don't know how to distinguish the 2 classes. However,
[END PAGE TWO]
[BEGIN PAGE THREE]
a cytological study should be made to eliminate gross obvious chromosomal rearrangements. We agreed to do that. I think I'll take a fling this month if I get time.
The Colloquium was all right but I didn't enjoy the CSH talk very much. McClintock and Luria were the only live people. The only trouble with the Colloquium was that we neither had completed the uracil Delbruk nor shown it to be impossible to perform. Our situation is this. We can count cells in sloppy agar but we have not been able to maintain a dependent strain long enough to make the test. Dep. strains isolated into eggmeat plus or minus uracil test dependent the first few days and are thenceforth independent.
[END PAGE THREE]
[BEGIN PAGE FOUR]
What does the Delbruk show that this does not, except quantitative expression? We now find that serial transfer on Septicum medium and uracil maintains dependents and are making new isolates today. If we dont [sic] get our variance test done by June 1 we will drop the problem.
During June we plan to work on E. coli. I agree the multiple mutation problem is of utmost importance.
I hope to get to Yale the 12th and will probably bring the Gregg's [sic] along. I want to discuss my CSH Symp. talk with you for I'd like to refer to bacterial back mutation. I'm afraid my talk will be rife with preliminary data and suggestions
Glad to hear you are progressing with syntrophism. Plug away at it.
Regards
Sincerely
Francis.
Metadata Last Modified Date:
2007-01-17
Linked Data:
RDF/XML     JSON     JSON-LD     N3/Turtle     N-Triples