23 December 1975
Dear Victor,
I think that now I have received all comments as I imagine you have on the report on chromosome 6. I thought therefore it might be helpful to send you a note so that at least changes might be made in proof if possible. First of all, however, answers to one or two other points. Certainly one should now say B27 and not W27. I am sure you are right about Pr being Parotid proline rich protein--I am afraid this really hadn't occurred to me as it not one I am terribly familiar with! Thirdly a small request for a change in our paper by Buck, Bodmer, Bobrow and Francke. In the first paragraph of this manuscript line 4 in describing reciprocal translocation it should be 46 at the front and not 45.
Now comments on the chromosome 6 report. I would leave it to as to whether you think it worth responding to Moyra Smith's suggestion that abbreviations should be spelled out in a footnote. My view here was that the list of markers would include an explanation of all abbreviations and so that anything like this might be a little redundant. I enclose a letter from Gedde-Dahl in which he points out that further data from their laboratory seems to confirm placing GLO between HLA and PGM3. This is in conflict with published data by Kompf suggesting very weak linkage between GLO and PGM3 and also places GLO much closer to HLA than data given by Weitkamp or Marion Lewis. Thus while the linkage of GLO and HLA seems to be very clear it seems also to me to be the case that there is conflicting data as to which side of HLA it should be on. Weitkamp's data clearly places it on the B side of HLA which place it between HLA and PGM3. However, his and Marion Lewis' recombination fraction is 10% which should then place GLO very close to PGM3 which is inconsistent with Kompf's data. Whether Gedde-Dahl's data on the GLO-HLA recombination fraction being 2.5% is significantly different from 10% isn't clear and if not there may be no inconsistency except some error in Kompf's data! However, I think my suggestion would be to leave the position of GLO still undecided as I have it in the tentative map in Fig. 1. In answer to John Edward's comments I am not sure how to deal with point 1 and wonder whether it needs any comment. Can I leave this to you? I disagree with his comment  and feel that genes should be used -- loci are their position on the chromosome. For point 3, I note that haemoglobin [beta] chain is included in the table of negative lod scores with HLA and nothing needs to be done and for point 4 Hunt should be changed to H in the references. For Marion Lewis' comments I have changed the lod scores in table 2 to add in the ones from her paper as she suggests and as already indicated I feel there is no need to change the information on the GLO HLA linkage. The only point I would make on changing the lod scores here is that I know from a manuscript I recently received to review of Lowell Weitkamp's that he has more data which increase his lod scores so that even as they stand now they are not quite up to data. However, I gather he is on his way to Australia now and so I have not had a chance to have any comments back from him. In the hope of not breaking a confidence I send you a copy of the table from his manuscript which gives presumably his most up to date lod scores which are complicated by possible differences between blacks and whites.
Lastly I enclose an actual corrected copy of the report which includes corrections from Don Merritt. I am not quite sure what he wants at the footnote of Table 1 except to realign. I think we have to accept his assessment of the positioning of C8  in Figure 1 though I remain sceptical about the validity of his recombinants. There just seem to be too many by chance in that one family between HLA-A and B.
I am sure it must be quite a chore to deal with all the editing of these manuscripts but we shall all be looking forward to the finished volume.
With very best wishes for Christmas belatedly and for the New Year to you and Ann.
Yours sincerely,
Walter Bodmer