IUBio

Bact. Strain BL21

ChenHA hachen at bc.ic.ac.uk
Mon Mar 15 14:09:35 EST 1999


On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, Dr. Duncan Clark wrote: 

> In article <36E8D952.D67B5B58 at nmr.kun.nl>, Jan Aelen
> <janal at nmr.kun.nl> writes >Can anyone tell me, wich reason there is
> in some countries to forbid for >the future the Bacterial Strain
> BL21 and to prefer for this the strain >HMS174. 
> 
> I believe that BL21 is derived from a wild type B strain. It could
> therefore populate the gut. For that reason alone it is considered
>unsafe. 

Something wrong somewhere surely.  All E. coli strains are
ultimately derived from wild-type strains, therefore it is wrong to
say that BL21 being derived from wild-type B strain is the reason
for it to be consider unsafe.  I ask a similar question some time
back because the Health and Safety people got a bit zealous and
suggested that BL21 should be consider unsafe.  If I remember
correctly, according to the Health and Safty booklet, the reason
BL21 should not be used because a) it is not derived from K and B
strains, b) it is not sufficiently disabled.  The first reason is
certainly wrong, because BL21 is derived from B strain.  However,
the second reason is certainly correct.  Unlike other commonly used
strains, BL21 is not rec- or have significant mutations that would
render it uncompetitive in natural environment.  I believe this
health and safety rule applies to all UK institutions, but how
zealously it is applied depends on the individual institution (there
is also this rather complicated point system I think on calculating
how hazardous an organism is, and some people get round this by
fudging the various parameters and get BL21 down to within the safe
range). 





More information about the Methods mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net