19 
MINUTES OF MEETING - June 5-6 
< 
the aphid transmission factor. Dr. Brill said Dr. Shepherd argues that 
no other DNA plant viruses are similarly restricted in the Guidelines. 
Dr. Brill noted that CaMV does not replicate in the aphid and is lost 
from the aphid in a few hours. Dr. Gottesman asked if the use of non- 
transmissible CaMV vectors provides an extra measure of containment. 
Dr. Zaitlin replied that aphid transmissible CaMV strains are easily con- 
tained mechanically. He said the virus has a limited host range, and a 
highly specialized interaction exists between aphid and plant. He said 
that the use of non transmissible CaMV strains may provide some additional 
containment but felt that risk of disseminating recombinant material by 
this vector was very lew. 
Dr. Setlcw proposed that the two questions Dr. Shepherd posed be voted on 
separately. Accordingly Dr. Brill moved approval of Dr. Shepherd's request 
to delete language requiring use of aphid non- transmissible CaMV strains 
from Section III-C-3. The RAC accepted this motion by a vote of ten in 
favor, none opposed, and four abstentions. 
Dr. Brill then moved that the RAC approve Dr. Shepherd's request to permit 
introduction of DNA fragments frem the genome of aphid transmissible CaMV 
to the genome of aphid non- transmissible strains under PI conditions. 
The RAC accepted this motion by a vote of eleven in favor, none opposed, 
and three abstentions. 
XI. PROPOSED REVISION OF SECTION III-C-1-e OF THE GUIDELINES 
Dr. Bems reviewed the history of the proposal (tab 881/12, 900) to 
revise Section III-C-1-e of the Guidelines. He said that a proposal 
dealing with the use of animal virus genomes as vectors was presented to 
the RAC at the March 6-7, 1980 meeting. At that meeting, part I of the 
proposal was modified and recommended by the RAC, and subsequently ap- 
proved by the Director, NIH, changing Section III-C-1-e, Ill-C-l-e-(l) , 
and III-C-l-e-(l)-(a) of the Guidelines. 
Dr. Bems said that consideration of parts II and III of the proposal 
was deferred until the June 5-6, 1980 meeting to permit a working group 
to examine the issues in greater detail. The working group met in Miami 
Beach, Florida, in May 1980 during the meeting of the American Society 
for Microbiology. Dr. Bems said the approval given to part I of the 
proposal was reevaluated. The concensus of the working group was that 
PI containment conditions are acceptable if the investigator has demon- 
strated the absence of helper virus. 
Dr. Bems said the working group then examined the situation wherein 
defective viral genomes are rescued by helper virus. He noted that the 
original proposal suggested P2 containment levels for rescue experiments 
if wild-type strains of the helper virus are not able to grow in human 
cells. Containment for rescue experiments would be set at P3, if wild- type 
[119] 
