A second response to Christopher Noble's "What part of "infectious molecular clone" do you fail to understand?" 8 April 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos,
Biophysicist
Royal Perth Hospital, Western Australia, 6001,
Valendar F Turner, John Papadimitriou, Barry Page, David Causer, Helman Alfonso, Sam Mhlongo, Todd Miller, Christian Fiala

Send response to journal:
Re: A second response to Christopher Noble's "What part of "infectious molecular clone" do you fail to understand?"

In his rapid response “What part of “infectious molecular clone” do you fail to understand?” (26th March 2004), Christopher Noble wrote: “Chris Tyler wrote: "Forgive my ignorance here, but could one pass any stretch of DNA through a bacterial vector and call it 'infectious'?"

No.”

We are glad Christopher Noble holds this opinion. Why then doesn’t he tell the “HIV” experts, in particular Brian Foley, that they cannot take the cDNA of a polyA-RNA, pass it through a bacterial vector and call it “HIV” infectious molecular clone, not to mention infectious clone of “HIV”?

Competing interests: None declared