Which Agrobacterium strain?
Leonard N. Bloksberg
bloksber at pilot.msu.edu
Thu Jan 20 13:37:07 EST 1994
In Article <19940120114659.bloksber at thomashaw-at.css.msu.edu> "bloksber at pilot.msu.edu (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 pilot.msu.edu
Apparently there has been a problem with the distribution of this message.
I am re-posting.
More information about the Arab-gen