December 3rd
Dear Rosalind,
Leslie, Don Caspar, and I have all read your MS which we think quite good. Thus, the following criticisms are only of 2nd degree importance.
1) I believe Schramm should be given more credit for the sub unit idea - especially his Zeit-Nature 1947 article. I was most aware of his ideas when I renewed work on TMV [written next to this: Z. Naturef.[?] 26 (1947) 112-121 and 249-257]
I am also not convinced that Schramm is wrong with regard to the amino end group
Schramm was also the first person to show aggregation of RNA from sub units (in 1943!!)
2) I was not so emphatic about the location of the RNA - I believe I was quite cautious with "ifs"
3) Size of sub unit
[mathematical equations, see Lister Hill for tech solution]
[END PAGE ONE]
[BEGIN PAGE 2]
4) I wonder about the 55 angstrom shell. Your statement about the 6th layer line makes me suspicious that low hydration is the sole answer but since I have not seen your F.T., my comment is possibly foolish.
5) The argument about the large available surface seems phony to me. Most non aggregated proteins will have a far more accessible surface.
6) The Proline remark will probably confuse the non initiated. Needs a diagram to be clear. I would leave it out.
In spite of these criticisms, a very nice summary of TMV status.
with best regards,
Jim