Thanks for the copy of the grant request. Needless to say, I have not read it in detail (I doubt whether anyone ever will),
but it looks like overkill. I will be amazed if it is not simply rubberstamped. I look forward to reading the pink sheet.
Do you think we will be obliged to equal our output plus 10% p.a.? The thought of seeing around 150 papers through the mills
in the next five years is enough to keep me on permanent sabbatical.
Ray's talk at ICRF included a few tidbits I thought you might like to hear about, though word may drift back by other
channels. (i) They find both phosphoserine and phosphothreonine in both src and sarc products. The p-ser in src (but not
the p-thr in src) appears to be formed by a cAMP dependent kinase since cAMP stimulates the phosphorylation of the ser residue
in extracts. (ii) src product has been purified to about 90% purity, mainly with the aid of immuneabsorbent columns. The
product phosphorylates a limited set of substrates and when added to an extract of uninfected CEF phosphorylates a small number
of proteins as yet unidentified (so he says). The "purified" stuff sticks to lots of columns, but not to phosphocellulose.
(iii) The src product of two recovered ASV's (#165 and 1181 from td101) will score (by both immunoppt and kinase assays)
with marmoset but not with rabbit antisera, whereas the products of two others rASV's (#122 and 242, also from tdlOl)
will score in both assays with rabbit antisera. I mentioned our results with Peter's rASV's to him, and he expressed
an interest (and willingness) to have them checked with marmoset antisera; he may call you about this, or you could call him
if you and Herman were interested. (iv) As I mentioned on the phone, the marmoset antisera bring down a phosphoprotein of
about 60 k from chick, duck, quail, not mammalian cells. It is larger (by a couple of thousand) than src product, with the
difference in size apparently located in the C terminal half. The partial products (with V8 and chymotrypsin) are very similar,
save for the one fragment which reflects the size difference (compared with SR-D src). The level of sarc is about 1/50 that
of src in an infected CEF; there are no variations with growth conditions, QT lines versus QEF, etc. No kinase activity as
yet and no success with the rabbit antisera.
I am enclosing a sketchy compendium of what I was able to glean of Astrin Hayward results from Bill's brief talk. I don't
know what is from Kimber and what is from SPAFAS. I will hear a lot more about endogenous DNA in the next week, since Dominique
is coming here to review the data he and David Frisby have obtained with a large selection of birds. The most striking thing
they have is the absence of much viral DNA in two species of jungle fowl, but they apparently have found fragments which anneal
well in digests of pheasant DNA. Quail and other birds yield faint bands that can't be interpreted (shades of our own
I hope you haven't done much with Craig's paper, since I have decided to rewrite it in an entirely new fashion, with
the feral mouse data preceding the inbred mice. This suggestion came from Ed Southern and it makes a lot of sense to me.
I still don't have much to say about my own work, but I am fooling around with some polyoma transformed clones that display
phenotypic differences upon addition of dex (I derived these clones in an elaborate experiment which was supposed to, but
didn't, give me some clones in which dex rigidly controlled polyome gene expression). I am also learning how to make
mutants by trying to generate ts mutants in the little and middle t regions of polyoma DNA. And I am still trying to revert
ASV transformed cells by putting the DNA of MMTV or hrt mutants of polyoma into the ASV provirus. Our first blots will hopefully
be annealed this week if Ron remembers to bring the probes.