May 13, 1953

DR, P. R. Edwards
Box 185
Chamblee, Georgia

Dear Phil:

Yours of the llth just received, for which thanks along with the same
for letter and report of the 6th. I hope you will have enjoyed your trip
to Ann Arbor, (or was it Lansing).

I know just how you feel anent ‘invariably something I forgot to tell
you". There are so many minutiae in this work and our correspondence that
it ia very easy to miss the forest for the trees.

Has SW-1041 been typed yet (v. my letter of the 6th)? This was S. gallinarum
——x SW-1040 (IX XII a:—-), and appeare to show a g... antigen in gallinarum.
I am sending a group of similar transductions, all —x SW-1040, all g... and
derived from the S. gallimarun strains as indicated. {When I say g..., I really
mean reacting with gm serum; they might be m....] The somatic antigen here is
of no snecial ponsequence; the point of doing this series was to see whether
a variety of 3. gallinarum strains ail behaved alike.

Strain being sent From 5. gallinarum .... --x SW-1040/a serum

(1043-G1) P1b (alreadysent as Si~1041)
CD:
1043-G2 2923-49
-33 2927-51
G4 309K53 30953
~35 3728-52
-a7 3968-52
~G3 4614-52
~G1O 5522-52

This makes 6 out of 10 S. gallinarum tested. The other two (3966-52 and 5285-52)
have given nothing in two runs. I am looking into possible trivial reasons for
this, but meanwhile do you know anything about these two that would set them

off from the others? None of 10 3. pullorum strains have given anything in a
similar trial.

Now to java. I will tell you my misgivings about what I called "N97" heretofore.
I brought N97 ph 1 up with me, and inoculated the unpurified culture into b
serum agar, and promptly recovered a 1,2 phase.{sW-i00~ At about the same time,
I accidentally chucked out the original N97. In hopes of recovering it, as I thought,
I put the unpurified 1,2 phase in 1,2 serum and got back what I will now call
Svi-1007, and had hitherto called "N97" (1n quotes). ‘Meanwhile, I had also put a
single colony isolate of the original N97b into b ag:r and got, again, a 1lg2
phase I will call 3i+1009. After purification, 371009 also gives a b phase
*maybe not
I'll see.

(scmewhht to my surprise), which I will call SW-1009b. Unlike the original

N97, both SW-1007 and SW-1009b have given only 333 phases on further selectiog
in b serum. It is apparent that SW-1007 was not a recovery of the criginal N97b,
but that it is a product of the intervening 1,2 phase.

A fresh subc. of N97 arrived recently. Bach of 6 single colony isolates gave
1,2 phases after 24-36 hours in b serum agar. However, these 1,2's are not all alike:
some will engender a b phase again (like SiW-1009}; others are stably 1,2:——.
[I am just now looking to see whether this difference is already inherent in the
single colony isolates from the original N97, or whether different 1,2 phases from
the same recently xramk redsolated subculture will behave differently]. Theze—az
there it has been possible to go from b -~ 1,2 -—— b, the tertiary b phase has
been stable, giving only 233.. There is some thing funny about this; N97 would
probably not have been described as monophasic if it had behaved this way before,
but the time required to give new phases seems to be highly variable.

There are two anomalies shout the java derivatives. One is almost familiar,
that the 1,2 antigen behaves as a phase-l homologue. This has been tested, however,
only for #157 and for SW-1009. Other paraB second phases will have to be reexamined
more closely (and in this connection, I would not at all mind having the type java.
I do not think I want to spsnd more time on further isolates from the same outbreak,
unless theybhave patently different behavior).

The second anomaly is the production of mxkx i:b phases. This has ensued from
TM--x SW-1O07 and TH--x SN~1LO009b. TM—x N25b gave (for a change as expected) i:—, _
and TM--x N97b gave an i:1,2 ifurther reveraibility and homology of 1,2 not yet tested.
In the vart- phase sejuence b,: 1,2: bg, therefore, it has been the 1,2 and the bo

steps that have given all of the peculiar results. The priginal b, has behaved like
any other monophasic phase 1 lexcept for generating the others].

I am not sure which batch of cultures it is for which you lack the pedigrees,
My letter of April 30 gives the background of SW674B, SW-930, SW-1005, SW-1036
and-S-—--Hare I see what may be missing. SWxk@Sibcamt S1-1039 and SW-1040 are
IX XII b:-~ and a:-- from S. typhi H90] x—- SW-666band X— S. sendai, respectively
(see table 1, our ms.: the numbers may be missing. Siv-1038 belongs in table 3,
IX XII b:1,5 from S. abony -—-x miami.

SW-1031 hag been carried to a:b:a:x (not yet tested), unlike its parent
SW-1026 which went only i:b:-(or 233).

To turn to the report dated 5/5/53. I can't imagine what happened to SW-1023.
It was inagglutinable in 1,5 and in polyvalent even after a passage in sefi-solid.
Now it is coming down cleanly in 1,5 and I have the other phase out which will un-
doubtedly be a, as yourcreport. I really don't know what to make of it, but at any
rate no new principle is set up (or broken down).

Si~999B is rather more enigmatic. Its somatic antigen (IV from your report)
suggests no possible contaminant; I am forced™to accept its origin from SW999
(IV V XII —:26 from S. zega --x Hines VAH). I note that SW-998 is given as
IV V XII a:1,5. Perhaps there has been « mixup here. I will see if SW-999B can
be reproduced from SW-999 and check some of the more obvious alternative possibilities

There is no way out for SW-1003, in spite of its IV V XII. I will send you
a number of uther a phases that have come up in the course of transduction experiments
together with the parent abortus-equi if you want to check this further. SW-1003
is written as TM —x #26, but no TM cells are present, and if there were, how could
they be a:enx? SW-1003 resembles #26 closely in a characteristically slow fermentatic

of galactose on EXB plates. there mist be 2 number of other possible biochemical
tests. The TM parent was the wild type. You can use Sii-698 or 699 meanwhile; I'll send
TM2 shortly.
These cultures are: SW-726 (your #26, passed through semisolid agar), and some
new derivatives of the Meyer straing, recently received frem you:

sft-1033, Meyer, passed through semisolid as used in these expts.

1042Al,. 1" passed through enx. (1/3 tubes after severak days
1042A2 " + phage "* " 1/3
1042A3.1 )

-2) " + TM phage " " 3/3

3)

The reversibility of these a phases is still being tested. 3c far, only
AZ has given enx .

As in previous experiments, it 1s not ebevdex obvicus whethsr the phage plays any
role. I will have to go back to #26, which never gave enything by itself. Unfortunately
it swarms through my agar rather more slowly than the others.

—cwmananem

The other items on your report are mors encouraging. I assume x-1,5 is a typo for
c-1,5 (SW-1012}. I don't know what to make of Sé-1021:; 1t may be another artificial
phase from miami rather than a transduction of 1,7. I have another experiment running
now, S. aitendorf ¢c:1,7 --x SW-1022 a:enx which [ hope may give the a:1,7 combination
without this complication. I have no 7 serum, and in my preliminary test of SW-1021
could only verify that it had 1 but not 5.

It is curious thet we should be at odds so about SW-986 and sWw-674, for I find
a confusion of phases in the former but not the latter, and vice versa. I will be
content to put this down to the imperfection of my own methods, until something new
comes up cn the subject. Have you tested the 1,2 phase of the parent of S'-674
(Si-435, which 4 believe you have) for reaction with g...?

It is curious that S¥-986 would swarm in n but not in enx (nor in sh, in my hands).
Is S. abortus-equi more patently variable in n serum? What is n (how separated from x,
B15...+)?

I am sure not to have covered everything, but this barrage may be enough till
I get your comments on the gs. Meanwhile, I'll see whether I can straighten out
SW-999B. I think the «ther reports have to be read at face value.

Sincerely,

Joshua Lederberg