Agro strain? / appology

Leonard N. Bloksberg bloksber at
Fri Jan 21 14:21:21 EST 1994

In Article <19940120114659.bloksber at> "bloksber at  (Leonard N. Bloksberg)" says:
> .
> There is some obvious missunderstanding of the biology here, compounded by
> sloppy lab notation and nomenclature.  It is VERY important to realize that
> an agrobacterium strain used in transformation has at least 3 components
> which must be recognized:
> .
> .	1.	The A. tumefaciens host genome.
> .
> .	2.	The vir region genotype used to facilitate transfer.
> .
> .	3.	The T-DNA region used (borders and plasmid).
> .
> Each of these has it's own effect on the transformation process.  LBA4404 is
> a genotype.  It can be used in conjunction with either a nopaline, octapine,
> or manopine vir region, and will have completely different characteristics
> in transformation experiments in each case.  EHA101 is also a genotype.  What
> genotype was it derived from?  What vir plasmid is it normally used with?
> C58 is also a genotype notation.  I have used C58 with no plasmid, and I can
> assure you, it does not cause tumors on plants.  Which vir plasmid would you
> like to use it with?  Since the literature clearly indicates that there is a
> difference, it is important that we are specific in our materials and methods.
> 	Considering all the time we, as scientists, spend teasing apart the 
> precise details of biology, I find it offensive that some of my colleages 
> are so blithe to use vague descriptions and nomenclature which mask the work
> of all their predecessors into the same jumbled view of the world that we 
> started with.
> 	Please be as specific as possible in all scientific writing.
> .
> .	Dr. Leonard N. Bloksberg
> .	bloksber at
> .
> ..
Regarding the above post, I would like to issue an appology.  After reading
it back myself, I realized that my tone was inappropriate.  In addition, 
discussions around the lab have enlightened me to an older method of 
microbial nomenclature which focuses on strain designations rather than
seeking separate nomenclature for chromosomal and eppisomal genomes.  
Personally, I still prefer the precission of the latter format, but it is
wrong of me to criticize adherents of the former, especially in such
a tone as used above.  I hope that my appology will be accepted, and will
help to save the bandwidth from an onslaught of flames directed at myself.
If you still feel a need to further admonish me for my error, please restrict
your comments to my personal email account rather than wasting everyone elses
time with my mistake.  Thanks.
..	Leonard N. Bloksberg
..	bloksber at

More information about the Arab-gen mailing list