NEWS AND NOTES

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is issuing new regulations that establish a streamlined process for the screening of certain microbial biotechnology products to ensure that they are safely developed for commercial use in a broad range of industrial and environmental applications. The new regulations are being issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

"Today's action achieves the Clinton Administration's objective to protect human health and the environment, while providing flexibility for the development of our nation's emerging biotechnology industry," said EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner. "Our goal is to help the nation safely realize the widespread benefits of biotechnology in a number of markets, from pollution prevention to environmental cleanup."

The regulations cover those microbial biotechnology products developed for industrial applications subject to EPA oversight under TSCA. Other federal authorities regulate the development and introduction of biological pesticides, drugs and food additives.

Under these regulations companies that manufacture or researchers who develop microbial biotechnology products are required to notify and obtain EPA review prior to the use of their products in commerce or testing in the environment. Specifically the new regulations:

• Tailor preexisting screening requirements for new chemicals and establish a distinct program for microbial biotechnology products under section 5 of TSCA. EPA has been reviewing microbial biotechnology products for 10 years under the authority of a policy statement issued in 1986 and under TSCA regulations originally written for new chemicals. Today's action supersedes these preexisting policies and regulations.

• Continue to focus the Agency's regulatory attention on microorganisms that are likely to display new traits or to exhibit less predictable behavior in the environment.

• Provide full or partial exemptions from the notification and screening requirements for certain categories of new microorganisms introduced for commercial use or testing in the environment and for which EPA has acquired substantial assessment experience. A process for seeking additional exemptions also is provided.

WHAT'S IN THE PIPELINE?
Spring is here and it's time to plant. In addition to the hundreds of field tests that will be conducted under notification, permits have been issued or are pending for dozens of transgenic crops listed below.

[Abbreviations: BNYVV, beet necrotic yellow vein virus; CMV, cucumber mosaic virus; LMV, lettuce mosaic virus; PLRV, potato leaf roll virus; PRSV, papaya ringspot virus; PVY, potato virus Y; SqMV, squash mosaic virus; SrMV, sugarcane mosaic virus; TEV, tobacco etch virus; TMV, tobacco mosaic virus; ToMoV, tomato mottle virus; TSWV, tomato spotted wilt virus; WMV2, watermelon mosaic virus 2; ZYMV, zucchini yellow mosaic virus.]

apple resistant to lepidopteran pests (Dry Creek, renewal pending); having altered product quality (UC- Berkeley)

barley engineered to produce a thermostable protein (Washington State University); expressing a marker gene (Coors, Brewing)

beet with a coat protein gene conferring resistance to BNYVV (Betaseed); tolerant to phosphinothricin (AgrEvo; Betaseed); glyphosate tolerant (Hilleshog; Monsanto)

belladonna carrying the hyoscamine 6beta-hydroxylase gene for insect resistance (U of Chicago)

creeping bentgrass modified with genes for Rhizoctonia solani and Sclerotinia resistance or phosphinothricin herbicide tolerance (Rutgers U)

chestnut trees resistant to chestnut blight (Connecticut Ag Experiment Station)

cucumber with either coat proteins or unnamed genes for resistance to CMV, PRSV, WMV2, and ZYMV (Seminis Vegetable Seeds)

eggplant engineered with a Bt CryIIIA gene for Colorado potato beetle resistance (Rutgers U)

grape resistant to Lepidopteran pests and two species of nematodes (UC-Kearney); sulfonylurea herbicide tolerant (DNA Plant Technology)

lettuce with coat protein for resistance to LMV (Seminis Vegetable Seed)

melon carrying coat protein genes for resistance to CMV, PRSV, SqMV, WMV2, and ZYMV (Seminis Vegetable Seeds); resistant to CMV, WMV2, and ZYMV (Harris Moran)

peanut resistant to lesser cornstalk borer, thanks to a CryIA(c) gene (U of Georgia)

petunia with a product quality gene deemed confidential business information (Monsanto, pending)

pepper resistant to CMV and TEV (Seminis Vegetable Seeds); fruit ripening altered (DNA Plant Technology)

potato engineered for Coleopteran insect and PLRV resistance, with or without PVY resistance (Monsanto); PLRV and PVY resistant (U of Idaho)

rapeseed resistant to post-harvest fungal disease or with increased lysine level or with altered oil quality (Cargill); lepidopteran resistant (U of Chicago); herbicide tolerant (AgrEvo)

rice made tolerant to imidazolinone (American Cyanamid) or phosphinothricin (AgrEvo; Louisiana State U); producing pharmaceutical proteins (Applied Phytologics)

squash resistant to CMV, PRSV, SqMV, WMV2, and sometimes ZYMV (Seminis Vegetable Seeds)

strawberry with delayed ripening and resistance to Botrytis, Sclerotinia, and Verticillium mediated by chitinase, glucanase, and polygalacturonase inhibitor protein (DNA Plant Technology); resistant to Botrytis, Colletotrichum, Phytophthora, and Pythium and 2,4-D tolerant (Plant Science Research); with unnamed genes for altered ripening and fungus resistance (Calgene)

sugarcane coat protein modified to resist SrMV (Texas A&M)

sunflowers resistant to CMV and TMV (Pioneer)

tobacco producing pharmaceutical proteins or with unspecified traits conferred by genes deemed confidential business information (Biosource)

tobacco mosaic virus engineered to produce pharmaceutical proteins (Biosource)

tomato modified for delayed ripening and increased solids (Zeneca); resistant to geminivirus (Seminis Vegetable Seeds); resistant to TSWV (Rogers); resistant to ToMoV (U of Florida)

watermelon engineered for resistance to CMV, PRSV, WMV2, and ZYMV (Seminis Vegetable Seeds)

wheat engineered with an unnamed gene for Fusarium resistance or herbicide tolerance (Monsanto)

Pat Traynor
Information Systems for Biotechnology
traynor@nbiap.biochem.vt.edu

LITIGATING BT PATENTS FOR MARKET SHARE
A recent (1/23/97) press release headline states, "Mycogen Corporation has filed suit in Federal Court here [San Diego], claiming that a new bioinsecticide developed by Ecogen Inc. infringes Mycogen patents covering Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) gene technology." There have been so many lawsuits in recent years over claimed infringements relating to Bt that even industry insiders who keep a close watch on these activities have a hard time keeping track of who is suing whom. It's not just the Bt genes themselves, but every aspect of the technology relating to Bt genes, including the promoters, selectable markers, full-length versus truncated and synthetic versions, transformation methods, etc. The following table which lists recent suits is incomplete, but it provides a sense of the intensity of the battle over the patent claims relating to Bt. The fact that litigation is extremely expensive and time consuming suggests that the stakes are high for the participants.

Date	Plaintiff	Defendants	Area of Patent Coverage
Jan '97	Novartis	Monsanto, DeKalb, Pioneer	Method of protecting corn against insects, including Bt protein ingestion by corn borers
Oct. '96	Mycogen	Monsanto, DeKalb	1)Modification of Bt genes for plant expression 2) Introduction of genes into plant 3) Plants and seeds from cells transformed with Bt genes
Aug. '96	PGS	Mycogen, Ciba	Bt expressed in plants
Jul. '96	DeKalb	Beck's Hybrids, Countrymark	Intent to sell Bt corn hybrids
June '96 Apr. '96	DeKalb	Northrup King Pioneer, Ciba, Mycogen	Bt insect resistance and glufosinate tolerance using ballistic transformation methods
Mar '96	Monsanto	Mycogen, Ciba	Modified Bt DNA sequence to make plants more insect resistant
Oct '95	PGS	Mycogen, Ciba	Protection of plants containing truncated Bt genes
May '95	Mycogen	Monsanto	Process to synthesize Bt genes

These disputes are to be settled in court. Why can't the companies sit down at a table and find an amicable solution? Depending on who you ask, the following answers are given:

• These disputes reflect the novelty of this technology to the seed industry. The situation is reminiscent of the learning process which the chemical and pharmaceutical industries went through in past years.

• There is much at stake financially because the new technology generates a lot of added value and all the players believe they are entitled to a big piece.

• Extended litigation saps the financial resources of weaker companies, assisting in further consolidation of agbiotech companies, to the advantage of the financially stronger companies even though their patent claims might be weaker.

• There is a lot of pressure on companies to maintain their stock value which is partially based on claimed property rights.

• Some of the players have big egos. Monsanto's CEO Robert Shapiro "will kick butt in the marketplace" in order to "get environmentally better products that people want to market faster at lower costs" (Fortune 4/16/96, p116).

The good news is that, in spite of the litigation, corn, cotton, and potato modified with the Bt gene technology are being aggressively commercialized. Several companies have already brought products into the market place. There are many examples of research collaborations and licensing agreements which allow other interested parties access to the patented materials. DeKalb, for example, recently announced that Monsanto's acquisition of Holden's Foundation Seeds will have no impact on the long- term research collaboration or the cross-licensing agreements that DeKalb and Monsanto entered into a year ago.

On the negative side, farmers, who will benefit from the new technology through reduced pesticide use and increased yield, will likely pay the price of the lawsuits in the cost of the value-added seed. Another negative impact, according to Brent McCown (University of Wisconsin), is that commercialization of genetically modified minor crops has been prevented or delayed due to conflicts over proprietary rights. For example, commercialization of Bt-cranberry has been put on hold until some of the Bt patent issues are settled. The small cranberry industry is not willing to commit the necessary resources - time and money for lawyers - to pursue the necessary agreements in the uncertain environment created by the numerous lawsuits.

Jan Klein
kleinja@nbiap.biochem.vt.edu

PLANT RESEARCH NEWS

Plant-derived antigens have shown to be functionally similar to conventional vaccines in their immunogenicity, i.e. they induce antibodies in the animal host. Now comes final proof that plant-based vaccines indeed protect animals against infection. Scientists in Europe recently showed that a vaccine produced in cowpea plants protects mink against an infectious virus that causes diarrhea and anorexia (1). The report appears in the March 1997 issue of Nature Biotechnology.

The mink enteritis virus (MEV) belongs to a group of viruses that also causes disease in cats and dogs. The current vaccine against this disease consists of inactivated viruses cultured in animal cells. The European group fused a small segment coding for the epitope of MEV into the coat protein gene of cowpea mosaic virus. The engineered plant virus with the mink virus epitope "piggy backed" onto the coat protein multiplied in infected cowpea plants. Scientists were able to recover abundant amounts of chimeric virus from the plants and injected small amounts into minks. All the immunized mink resisted a subsequent challenge inoculation of MEV while most of those not immunized quickly succumbed to the disease.

This exciting research brings closer to reality the prospect of commercial production in plants of edible vaccines against infectious human and animal diseases (2). Such vaccines are considerably cheaper, can be produced anywhere, and do not require a so-called "cold chain" of refrigerated transport and storage. They are potentially safer, too, as they consist of subunits of the pathogen rather than whole organisms which are used in many conventional vaccines. Charles Arntzen, now President and CEO of Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research at Cornell University, comments on the cowpea-mink virus research, "This is a wonderful example of interdisciplinary research. Collaborations between individuals with interests as disparate as structural biology and veterinary pathology have used some very basic science to devise a plant-based animal vaccine that actually prevents disease. This is another milestone experiment in the new arena of pharmaceuticals production in plants" (2).

Peter McGarvey, who along with Hilary Koprowski at the Thomas Jefferson University has developed tomato plants producing rabies vaccine says, "The research is significant in that it is the first published report of a plant-produced vaccine that protects against a pathogen. The vaccine at present is not better than the commercially available vaccines against the mink disease but it proves the principle and might be less expensive to produce." Kristian Dalsgaard from the Danish Veterinary Institute for Virus Research, who led the cowpea-mink virus team, says that the use of plants and plant-based virus systems could solve many problems with conventional vaccines such as cost and risk, and they are superior in many ways to vaccines produced by the current recombinant DNA techniques.

References:
1. Dalsgaard, K. et. al. 1997. Plant-derived vaccine protects target animals against a viral disease. Nature Biotechnology 15:248-253.

2. Arntzen, C. 1997. High-tech herbal medicine: Plant-based vaccines. Nature Biotechnology 15:221- 222.

C. S. Prakash
Center for Plant Biotechnology Research
Tuskegee University
prakash@acd.tusk.edu

PLANT GENE TRANSFER COMES OF AGE: LARGE DNA MOLECULES TRANSFERRED TO PLANTS
Introduction of foreign DNA molecules into plant cells is a pivotal but routine technique in crop biotechnology. The present technology, however, does not permit the introduction of more than three or four genes at a time. A technique that enables scientists to produce transgenic plants with large inserts of DNA can thus have an exciting impact on both basic and applied biotechnology. Scientists at Cornell University report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA the development of exactly such a technique (1). Using a newly constructed plasmid vector they transferred a 150 kilobase human DNA fragment into plant cells - about ten times the normal DNA size that could be transferred with conventional approaches.

The key to the success of the Cornell team, consisting of Carol Hamilton, Steven Tanksley and colleagues, was the methodical development of a unique vector called BIBAC (Binary Bacterial Artificial Chromosome) (2). Libraries with large chromosomal inserts are now increasingly made in the bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) vectors in E. coli, while the workhorse for transfer of genes into plants is Agrobacterium, which transfers a piece of its DNA into plant cells during infection. The BIBAC vector can multiply in both E. coli and Agrobacterium, and also has additional copies of the virG and virE genes whose products help in the efficient transfer of DNA from Agrobacterium to plant cells. Most of the transgenic tobacco plants developed with the BIBAC vector showed that the introduced human DNA fragment (150 kb) was present in an intact form and the fragment was passed on to subsequent progeny without any changes.

Now that the size barrier for plant DNA transfer is broken, scientists can seek to alter quality and yield traits that are controlled by multiple genes. Many agronomically important traits such as seed weight in soybean or tuber dormancy in potato are controlled by such quantitative trait loci. Additionally, many disease resistance genes are known to occur in clusters spanning a large chromosomal segment. The BIBAC vector may, for the first time, facilitate engineering of such complex traits in plants. Tanksley's group has recently isolated a chromosomal segment from tomato containing a major fruit weight quantitative trait locus (3). Richard Michelmore of the University of California, Davis, predicts that BIBAC's most significant applications will be in the map-based cloning of plant genes and a better understanding of how plant genomes are organized (4). According to Hamilton, BIBAC vectors may also be used in the future to reconstitute secondary product pathways, create new pathways for the production of novel compounds and reduce position-dependent expression of transgenes.

References:
1. Hamilton, C. M., A. Frary, C. Lewis & S.D. Tanksley. 1996. Stable transfer of intact high molecular weight DNA into plant chromosomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:9975-9979.

2. Hamilton, C.M. 1997. Binary-BAC system for plant transformation with high molecular weight DNA. Nuc. Acid Res. (Submitted)

3. Alpert, K.B. & S.D. Tanksley. 1996. High-resolution mapping and isolation of a yeast artificial chromosome contig containing tw2: A major fruit weight quantitative trait locus in tomato. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.USA 93:15503-15508.

4. Michelmore, R. 1996. Big news for plant transformation. Nature Biotechnology 14:16553-1654.

C. S. Prakash
Center for Plant Biotechnology Research
Tuskegee University
prakash@acd.tusk.edu

SUMMARIES OF RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH NOW ONLINE
Summaries of all past and current USDA Biotechnology Risk Assessment Research Grant awards are now available on the ISB Website under U.S. Government Documents. The summaries of 1992-1995 awards were extracted from USDA's Current Research Information System (the so-called CRIS Reports). Proposal summaries for 1996 awards are taken from the BRARG website (http://www.reeusda.gov/crgam/biotechrisk/biotech.htm). The database allows keyword and concept searching as well as listing by year.

The 1997 Request For Proposals is expected to be published in the Federal Register the first week of April; a May 16 submissions deadline is expected. Previous RFPs have included descriptions of priority research areas in addition to logistical details. The official announcement will be distributed to News Report subscribers and posted on the ISB and BRARG websites. Summaries of proposals funded in 1997 will be added to the database when the new awards are made.

Doug King
Information Systems for Biotechnology
nbiap@vt.edu

INDUSTRY NEWS

Mycogen Corp. has seen its stock rise from $13/share in September 1996 to nearly $30/share in January 1997. As of March 27, the price had declined to $25. Dekalb Genetics has seen significant growth in share price over the last year, from $24 up to as high as $67/share in February of this year. Interestingly, Dekalb's stock price has declined since February, and is now down to $57/share. At one point in mid-March, Dekalb's stock dropped almost 5 points for reasons unknown, prompting the company to issue a statement to Reuters that they were unaware of any reason for the stock to drop. Some analysts feel that both Mycogen and Dekalb stocks still have upsides despite gains over the last year. This is based in part on estimates for U.S. corn and soybean plantings.

In light of this, it is interesting to consider the findings of a report issued in February 1997 by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) on litigation in the biotechnology industry. The report found that the number of new litigations in biotechnology in 1996 was up 69 percent over the two previous years, and agricultural biotechnology firms were largely responsible. Mycogen and Dekalb, as well as other major players in the agbiotech arena including Pioneer Hi-Bred, Monsanto, Agrigenetics, Novartis, Northrup King, and AgrEvo were involved in a series of litigations producing 16 new cases, primarily concerning patents for transgenic seeds. While favorable outcomes of patent battles can have a positive impact on valuations, one has to wonder about the downside of extensive litigation. A 1995 survey by the AIPLA indicated that for biotechnology-related patent battles involving products that represent markets of $100 million or more, each litigation costs at least $3 million.

While a multitude of factors are responsible for ascending stock prices, the direct cost of litigation and the greater opportunity cost of tying up human capital, plus the uncertainty of outcomes, surely mitigates the potential for maximization of market value through stock price appreciation.

References:
1. U.S. Companies Database, Institute for Biotechnology Information, 1997.

2. Nasdaq Internet World Wide Web site, March, 1997 (http://www.nasdaq.com)

3. Edgington, S. M. 1997. Plant patents double biotechnology litigation. Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 15, March 1997.

William O. Bullock
Institute for Biotechnology Information, LLC
Research Triangle Park, NC
http://www.biotechinfo.com

PATENT OFFICE RAISES SPECTER OF PATENTS CLAIMING EXPRESSED SEQUENCE TAGS
At a February 14th meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Lawrence J. Goffney, Acting Deputy Commissioner of the US Patent and Trade-mark Office (PTO), stated that the PTO would consider as patentable small bits of DNA known as expressed sequence tags (ESTs) (1). This announcement reportedly shocked the AAAS audience, reawakening extreme concern over a controversy that seemed to have been put to rest five years ago.

The EST patentability debate began in 1991, when the National Institutes of Health (NIH) filed a patent application for gene fragments isolated with Dr. Craig Venter's EST/cDNA method for discovering new genes (2,3). Dr. Venter and his group had created their ESTs by randomly selecting clones from cDNA libraries and sequencing a short length of each (varying from 18 bases to 300-500 bases). The term "expressed sequence tags" reflects the hope that the cDNA fragments could be used to isolate complete genes, which in turn, would be used to study the function of encoded proteins. The first NIH patent application covered 347 DNA fragments, claiming the tags, as well as the corresponding, albeit unknown, genes. During 1992, the NIH filed a second application for 2,375 more DNA fragments and a third application for 3,400 fragments.

The biotechnology industry immediately voiced concern that patents granted for thousands of cDNA scraps might stifle the development of useful products derived from the corresponding genes. After all, companies would be reluctant to invest millions of dollars in developing a gene product that could not be patented. The scientific community also lacked enthusiasm for the idea of patenting ESTs, and criticized the NIH for filing the patent applications. One notable opponent to the NIH's massive filing of DNA fragment claims was Dr. James Watson, who directed the NIH genome project at that time. Dr. Watson denounced the plan to patent the ESTs as "sheer lunacy," contending that "virtually any monkey" could produce ESTs using automated sequencing machines (2)

Eventually, the PTO rejected the EST claims, at least because the DNA fragments lacked utility, a requirement of U.S. statutory law that a claimed invention must have some use that is credible to a person having knowledge of the technical area. This utility requirement is derived from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which authorizes Congress to provide exclusive rights to inventors to promote the "useful arts." The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the utility requirement as a need to show a "practical" utility, which is evidenced by a particular benefit in currently available form. Under this interpretation, a DNA molecule would lack a practical utility if the DNA molecule was useful only as an object of possible scientific inquiry. In short, it seemed unlikely that the NIH could convince the PTO to grant a patent for DNA fragments that could only be used in an attempt to isolate complete genes encoding proteins of unknown function.

Since the NIH abandoned the EST patent applications, the issue of patentability was not clearly resolved. Still, the allure of owning an EST patent seems irresistible since, today, at least 350 patent applications, covering more than 500,000 tags, are pending at the PTO (4). The largest single application reportedly contains 18,500 sequences.

After half a decade, has the PTO decided to open the floodgates and release an onslaught of EST patents that will stimulate a frenzy of litigation and cross-licensing? Perhaps, one day. But not yet. Considering the negative reaction of the scientific community and the biotech industry over the AAAS announcement, Bruce A. Lehman, Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of the PTO, recently informed the Biotechnology Industry Organization that the PTO's policy regarding the patentability of ESTs has not changed. Somewhat cryptically, however, Mr. Lehman also explained that the PTO is evaluating the concerns kindled by Mr. Goffney's announcement, and Mr. Lehman promised to advise BIO of any future action that the PTO may take regarding EST claims.

References:
1. Staff, ESTs, Again, The Scientist (March 3, 1997) (http://165.123.33.33/yr1997/mar/notebook_970303.html).

2. Roberts, Genome Patent Fight Erupts, Science 254:184 (October 11, 1991).

3. Wuethrich, All Rights Reserved: How the Gene-Patenting Race is Affecting Science, Science News 144:154 (September 4, 1993).

4. Marshall, Companies Rush to Patent DNA, Science 275:780 (February 7, 1997).

Phillip B. C. Jones
Foley and Lardner, Madison, WI
pbcj@globaldialog.com

UPCOMING MEETINGS
For a more complete list of meetings of interest to the biotech community, connect to http://www.nal.usda.gov/bic/Misc_pubs/meeting.htm at the National Agriculture Library's Biotechnology Information Center website.

June 1-3: 9th Annual Meeting of the National Agricultural Biotechnology Council: Resource Management in Challenged Environments, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. (email: nabc@cornell.edu; internet: http://www.cals.cornell.edu/extension/nabc).

June 8-12: Bio '97 International Biotechnology Meeting & Exhibition, Houston, TX. (Bio International Meetings Department, Biotechnology Industry Organization. tel: 202-857-0244; Fax: 202-331-8132).

June 17-19: Challenges of Biotechnology in the 21st Century, Jakarta, Indonesia. (Indonesian Biotechnology Conference Secretariat, c/o Inter-University Center for Biotechnology, IPB J1. Puspa, Kampus IPB Darmaga, P.O. Box 1, Darmaga-Bogor, Indonesia 16610, Fax: +62-251-621724; email: paubtipb@indo.net.id).

June 18-19: IBC's Second Annual Conference on Phytoremediation, Seattle, WA. (IBC USA Conferences, Inc. tel: 508-481- 6400; Fax: 508-481-7911; email: http://www.io.org/~ibc/phyto).

August 24-27: Transgenic Animals in Agriculture International Conference, Granlibakken Conference Center, Tahoe City, California. (Biotechnology Program, UC- Davis. tel: 916-752-3260; Fax: 916-752-4125; email: tgmeeting@ucdavis.edu).

September 15-16: 15th Annual ATCC Biotech Patent Forum, Center for Innovative Technology, Herndon, VA. (tel: 800-359-7370, 301-231-5566; fax: 301-816-4364; e-mail: workshops@atcc.org; internet: imbc@alpha.szn.it).

September 29-October 3: International Symposium of Biotechnology of Tropical and Subtropical Species, Brisbane, Australia. (Organizers Australia, P.O. Box 1237, Milton Q4064, Australia, Fax: 617-33671471; email: oa@bnec.design.net.au).

December 1-5: Transgenic Organisms: Biological Risk Assessment Theoretical Course, Trieste, Italy. (Ms. Micaela Di Blas, ICGEB, Padriciano 99, 34012 Trieste, Italy, Tel: 39-40-3757333; Fax: 39-40-226555; email: courses@icgeb.trieste.it).

The material in this News Report is compiled by NBIAP's Information Systems for Biotechnology, a joint project of USDA/CSREES and the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. It does not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or of Virginia Tech. The News Report may be freely photocopied or otherwise distributed without charge. P.L. Traynor, Editor.

Information Systems for Biotechnology, 120 Engel Hall, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0308, tel: 540-231-2620, fax: 540-231-2614, email: traynor@nbiap.biochem.vt.edu

For internet access to the News Report, textfiles, and databases use one of the following procedures.

1. Through WWW: http://www.isb.vt.edu/

2. To have the News Report automatically emailed, send an email message to news@nbiap.biochem.vt.edu and type subscribe newsreport [your-name] in the message section.

3. Through ftp, connect to ftp.nbiap.vt.edu. Use "anonymous" as your user-id, your email address as your password. Change directory to /pub/nbiap.

ISB News Report
120 Engel Hall
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0308