74 F. HERCIK 



Stent, G. S. (1958). Advance Virus Res. 5, 95. 

 Tessman, E. S. (1956). Virology, 2, 679. 

 TOBIN, J. O'H. (1953). Brit. J. e.vp. Path. 34, 635. 



WissEMAN, C. L., Smadel, J. E., Hahn, F. E., and Hopps, H. E. (1954). J. Bad. 67, 

 662. 



DISCUSSION 



maecovich: There was an experiment in whicli chloramphenicol was added 

 before the release of phage. How could it exert any influence, if the phage par- 

 ticles were already completely formed? 



HERCIK: Chloramphenicol was added at the end of the latent period. 



marcovich: Wliat is the explanation for the results obtained? 



HERCIK : It is very difficult to exjilain, since it should be borne in mind, that the 

 cjuantity of the phage is very small — only about two or three phages are released 

 in the Escherichia coli suspension. Becau.se of this, two possibilities pi'esent them- 

 selves: the first one is that phages ai'e released by one or two siu'viving cells, 

 since there are always surviving cells; the second possibility is that phages are 

 released at a very slow speed by several hundred cells. I cannot say with certainty 

 which of these two possibilities is more probable. 



pollard : When you changed over to agar with chloramphenicol, what was the 

 mediimi — the same as in the case of the suspension? 



HERCIK : Yes, the same. 



MARCOVICH: Did you allow the bacteria to gi'ow before seeding with the phage? 

 Under these conditions the quantity of the phages formed would have had no 

 influence. 



HERCIK : It would depend upon the number of bacteria which had been damaged 

 by the irradiation. 



