December 7, 1955

Dr. P. R. Biwards
Box 185
Chamblee, Ga.

Dear Phil:

T am getting around again to writing up the genetics of S, paratyphi 3
#137. As you suggested, I will put it a1] together before sending you a
copy for any amendments (including authorship) that you my see fit to
propose, Meanwhile, I wonder if you could lock over the bracketed materi: 1
on the enclosure and tell me if you can add anything to the atory. According
to my notes, N97b was received here initially with the label "AMS", which I
assume means Army Medical Service-- ia there anyone at Walter Reed who might
be able to add to the history?

4& couple of years ago you also mentioned that you had other cultures
from the same cutbreak. I did not see much point then of studying duplicates
and I am not really in a mood or position Bight now to do more experiments.
However; for possible future studies, it would relieve me te know that these
other cultures were safe in lyophil cr otherwise being watched over. if not,
but you still have them in a less secure form, I will he glad to accept res-
ponsibility for . few of ther.

Is it appropriate to use the form “CDC~157” or should I use a prefix like
"Ky." or "Bdwatds"? I hate to use a bare number.

I read the discussion in your paper, as requested. I can't see why
Kauffmann should be irked, and if he relies on transducing two markere (are
they Fla and H antigens?)(he evidently does not understand transduction genetics
very well. If he is referring to the 0 antigens, I am quite unconvinced that
this ie a tranaduction, On the other hand, I don't see why there should be much
fuss about the quantitative efficiencies of transduction in comparisons of
widely different phages. Even with PLT22, ws see wide variations when different
recipients are used. To call this kind of discrepency a "direct contrast” seems
hyperbolic, but & personally priveleged opinion, The main reason I hesitate
to bring wo the 5eantigen story is that I don't feel I unberstand it. There is
definitely not enough evidence to preve this is a stransduction (i.e., in terms
of the specificity of different donors); I save a feeling it is more closely
related to the story of Uetuke et al. in B,-E. changes. Dr. Bllen Simon (who
visited you recently) hopes to do some more wirk to try to clarify th genetics
of 5. By the wayy has the agreement to susveni naming Samonella serotypes
veen suspended? There seers to be some inconsistency in adherence to it. 12 hope
that the recent use of arabic numerals fer the sematic antigens eventually goes
by the board toc, or else some convention for clearly distinguishing them from
the flagellar,

Sincerely,

Joshua Lederberg