Reanyps: ‘ Denortment of Genetics University of Wisconsin Madison 5, Wisconsin October 22, 1952 Dear Or, Dianzini: I have your postcard concerning a comment on your transformation experiments which I sent to the informal Microbial Genetics Bulletin about two years ego. Perhaps you sre due an apology ca this matter. Dr. Austrica (from whose review I suspect you gained the reference) misconstrued the functions of the Bulletin, and should not have cited it as & publication. Oa April 1, 1952, I wrote to him as follows: "This brings me to the point of this letter, your reference 26, From the very beginning, as I understood it, (see p. 4, MAB~i), MOB has been agreed not to ba a publication, and citations should not be made to Lt. I would not have submitted my comasnat quetec as ref. 26 on any other basis. Before such a comuent is quofed at length in an un- restricted publication, { would think that Diansini should have an op- portunity to reply. 4 In response, Dr. Austrian submitted an erratum which, at least formally, withdrew this reference. I regret that lirs. Witkin (Dr. E. M. ditkin, Genetics Department, Carnegie Instliution, Col@ spring Haroor, ..1., Nei.) had not already solicited a reply from you for MGB. I am sure that she would be pleased stisl tc hear from you, and that many of my colieagues would be interested to have a brief comment from you on further developments in this work. Way 1 add that quite independently of this, we have succeeded in conducting "transformations" in Salmonella, involving a variety of markers, out including fermentative changes. The active principle ts, however, not a DNA extract, but the lysase evoked by certain phages. 1 should be most interested to hear further details on your own work, narticularly wito respect to the questions raised by my comment, and in wy similar letter tc you of January 9, 1951. Reprints of our studies should be avaliable within a short time, and wiil ba sent to you. Enclosed please find a “Reprint# as you requested. I hope that the misunderstanding has not embarrassed you. 18 MGB COMMENT ON RECENT PAPERS "“Matation in the enzymatic equipment of Egsherichia soli and Proteus OX 19 directed by desoxyribomucleic acid isolated from bacteria of the same and of different species." Dianzini, M.U. (1950) Experientia, 6! 332 This paper refers to "transformations" of E. coli and of Proteus with respect to carbohydrate utilization patterns, Very few details are given, but this paper leaves the impression that changes had been induced in the fermentative patterns of the treated cultures, This was of special interest to the undersigned, as fer- mentation markers are of some importance in genetic recombination studies. Dr, Dianzini was especially kind to discuss some details, and to send some ef his cultures. A parallel paper, "Mutazioni indotte dagli acidi mcleintc betterici," Bolleting Istituto Sieraterapeutico Milan, 29: 161-172, gives further details, The cultures were studied manometrically, but unfortunately the bacteria were harvested from plain ager, So that enzymatic adaptation to the different carbohydrate substrates was not considered. The experimental Q02 values therefore refer to the residual "constitutive" activity. Dianzini refers to the adaptation of control cultures to sucrose by growth on this substrate, so that it is not entively clear how atable his characters are in the absence of DNA treatment. Of the cultures sent by Dianzini, one was reported to be an imiuced sucrose- oxidiser, In fermentation tests it was indistinguishable from the culture from which it was stated to have originated, and muite different from the sucrose-positive trans- forming culture, It is to be hoped thet these studies will be contimed, as they are obviously quite important. However, whatever the characters are which Dianzini has transformed, they do not appear to deal with the fermentative markers used in genetic recombination studies in E. o:li.--J, Lederberg, Department of Genctics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin,