Which Agrobacterium strain?
Nancy N. Artus
artus at pilot.msu.edu
Thu Jan 20 14:06:00 EST 1994
In Article <19940117170936.bloksber at thomashaw-at.css.msu.edu> "bloksber at pilot.msu.edu (Leonard N. Bloksberg)" says:
> In Article <1994Jan17.130735.1 at molbiol.ox.ac.uk> "mknight at molbiol.ox.ac.uk" says:
> > Can anyone out there enlighten me as to what goes into the choice of which
> > Agrobacterium strain to use for transformations? I'm recommended by most people
> > to use C58 and told that LBA4404 is a bad idea. Why is this?
> > Many thanks!
> > Marc Knight
> > ==== ======
> LBA4404 is not really a bad idea, it's just not the best. When people have
> bothered to do side by side controled comparisons, Nopaline strains (eg,
> C58) give higher rates of transformation with transgenes. Also, some of the
> Octapine strains (eg the parent of LBA4404) still retain some of their onc
> genes, and can yield strange and mostly sterile transgenics (not so for
> LBA4404, as far as I know). LBA4404 contains the plasmid pAL4404 which is
> a HindIII partial digest of the original ti plasmid, and now has only the
> vir region left. My favorite is LBA4301 with the plasmid pUCD2614. The
> strain LBA4301 has the advantage of being rec-. It was originally an
> Octapine strain, but was cured of it's plasmid. The plasmid pUCD2614 was
> made by cloning NotI fragments of the C58 Ti plasmid into pUCD1002 to
> reconstruct the nopaline vir region only. I believe you can find the
> reference in Plasmid, by Rogowski and Kado, from around 1988 (I think).
> This combo (LBA4301 and pUCD2614) form a very efficient host and vir region
> that can transfer any tDNA with high efficiency, and it's rec- to boot. I
> recomend you write directly to Dr. C. I. Kado to get this strain. Good Luck.
> . Dr. C. I. Kado
> . Dept. of Plant Pathology
> . University of California, Davis
> . Davis, CA 95616
> . Tell him I sent you :-)
> . Leonard N. Bloksberg
> . Dept. of Crop and Soil Science
> . Michigan State University
> . East Lansing, MI 48824
> . bloksber at pilot.msu.edu
This is a repost of a previously sent message. Apparently, messages that I
send from my usenet account, to the bionet usenet account are recieved intact
by other usenet subscribers, but completely truncated by email subscribers.
Messages sent to the bionet email address (eg arab-gen at net.bio.net) are
received intact by both usenet and email subscribers. Appologies for the
More information about the Arab-gen