Which Agrobacterium strain?

[Leonard N. Bloksberg]

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.
..
..	Lenny
..
..