«wee

1-19-54

Dear Bruces a

ere is a hsty reply to informition requested in your (argent) letter
to Josh, received today, and also to some questions in your Ney Yoar's letter.
1)W-677(&relatives, 1177, 1817, 1876) carry a complex , supprficiglly called
Gal 5 (lysogmicity paper, table 1) History: for pur oses I needn t describe,
a Gal~ stock was allowed to napillate; later th: Gal+ derivative was ir-
radiated and a Gal - isolated, which actually was a slow-fermenter. Our
estimite? so-culled rev :rsion probably a suppressor: W-677 therefiore quite
likely carries original and secondary Gal- mutaxtions and differs furths
from wild stock by carrying a suppressor to the original mutation. At any
rate if the progeny are adequately tusted, 6°7 crossed to either Gal + or
Gal- gives rise to at least 3 distinguishable phenotypas among the progeny

I explicity did not use this stoék in Gal-Lo data (indidentally
based on F+ x F+ crosses) and among others wrote |to Appleyard at Caltech,
and to Dawes, Sept. 1953 ( at least, that's how I|deciphered the signature
of Rowley s colleague Clowes ). You nay Jravesotided that Wollman us:s 1177

(6772) as-the Gal + parent! \
In our opinion, no rel ea tan be aN Gal +/- segregations

if W-677 is one parent in the cposé considerntione

  
  
  
  
  
   
  
   
 

2) In the same letter last Seg old Clowes that W-945 and W-677
are indenendently derived after tx &Avrom a common stock, W-1; thus they
are identical only for: T-LpTh—hs 1-.
W-945 is now known t : It is unrelated to 946 which is a
prototrophic deriv.tjvg Frat $a and shown to be alleiic with the
; be ultimately built up.

3) Ne are working «a
cluster of Gal genes

¢ closely Linked but genetically sepurable
age to the Lp, (sic) locus. Gal 1, Gal 2,

  
  
    
 

  

and Gal 4 hi ens wa intensively. “hen some aspects of this in-
vestiga omple goen, we hope optigmistic:lly) the symbol designations
of the be presented, Gal 1...4 were described in my thesis (see

algo 4 hips oaper) .

he status of Gal- mutants other than those produced at
Wisconsin. | 's /mitant is not necessarily Gal 4.

4) Arab is Character, bss& not very useful. No definitite information
here on its linkage or genetic behavior.

5) We wire interested in norleuc. R until discovering that the Gal involved was
677. Manten and Rowley claims re Yal-TL linkage unconvincing; a proper test
on theeonine-supplenented and methionine-sunplemented minimal TtM- vt xTomM+v
and the reverse, then a study of distribution of Met ved oharagtar ddors and T+
recombinants ete ete constitutes a proper test.

6) Who said dead K-12 ? Micromanipulin of mating, distinguishable cell pairs
yielding suspected zygotes now very successful. We're quietly accumulating
details on ovost-zygotie eliaination, mting rrocess etd. Even Tom's «inetic
exreriments proving very ussful.

8/Gal5"Lp’ (cis),
diploid lambda from lwoffates only. that from Gal." Lp 2
” estes /oal - Lp’? @trans) and Gal>“Lp*/Gal Lp® distinguishable on
Gal 2 Galg - Gal,- in effectiveness; latter 3 ineffective on oer? ° pres
from dnd diploid gives rare transductions: (originate from 4p+ Galt hapior
crossovers, perhps, because 2.4. requirements and cultural conditions or
best induction allow selection fer some auxotrophic types. Work in progress
't qubte me yet too strictly on it. _ |
“3) Clive Spicer can recall to you the full ee weak visit ane
é jmants thee described. + thi ost apppea ‘ j
last Janes and oe ee iata and aduntationists never convince eaeh other -