Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T09:02:16.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bacteriological investigation into the causation of diarrhoea and enteritis in Dublin in 1942—3

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Simon Sevitt
Simon Sevitt
Affiliation:
Late of School of Pathology, Trinity College, Dublin
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Group I paracolon bacilli formed biochemically a stable group. They fermented glucose, maltose, mannite, and dulcite, but not saccharose. Most of them could be distinguished from Salmonella organisms by the late fermentation of lactose or the production of indole. Many resembled the Newcastle bacillus in being late-dulcite fermenters. Serologically 75% of the strains were identical, each containing the A antigen. Some formed a separate group containing the A antigen, and Bact. alkalescens antigen and the C antigen of some Group III strains. The A strains are probably identical with those of Dudgeon & Pulvertaft (1927), but their strains were described as being motile. All Group I strains had minor agglutinins in common with the dysentery bacilli, particularly when freshly isolated. Most of Dudgeon's strains were isolated from cases of urinary infection, but in the present investigation almost all were isolated from the discharges of infants with diarrhoea and enteritis. This organism may be regarded as pathogenic or facultatively so, and deserves a name. I suggest it would be appropriate to attach to it the name of Dudgeon, who was the first to call attention to it.

Biochemically Group III bacilli resembled Group I strains but differed in fermenting saccharose. Some were motile. The metabolic and biochemical properties examined were stable. Serologically many (40%) possessed the A antigen, but also possessed a type-specific antigen, E. Others (37%) possessed both C and D antigens, usually C but sometimes D was dominant. These strains are related to the dysentery bacilli by the possession of common, minor antigens. A group of serologically heterogeneous strains remained (23%), generally unrelated to the dysentery bacilli.

Most Group II bacilli were stable biochemically, but some were not. Many strains of Group IV were unstable. Serologically, Groups II and IV were mostly heterogeneous, although 24% were included in the A, B, C, D, E pattern. Together they formed but a minority of all the paracolon bacilli.

Further serological investigation is required to discover new antigens and to link up the paracolon bacilli isolated from various sources.

This work was carried out under a whole-time grant from the Medical Research Council of Ireland to whom I am indebted.

I wish to record my very best thanks to my director, Prof. R. A. Q. O'Meara, for his continuous interest and invaluable advice at all times and without whose aid this research would not have been possible. My gratitude and thanks are due to my colleague, Dr J. St L. O'Dea, for his unfailing co-operation, particularly in obtaining all the specimens so quickly, in assisting at the post-mortems, and for many other services too numerous to mention.

Thanks are also due to the authorities, doctors and nurses of St Ultan's Hospital, Temple Street Hospital, St Kevin's Hospital, Clonskeagh Fever Hospital, Cork Street Hospital, and the Child Welfare Clinics in Dublin, particularly to Dr F. N. Elcock and Dr T. Murphy for their support and co-operation; to the ‘Diarrhoea and Enteritis’ Committee of the Department of Local Government and Public Health for their supervision of the research; and to the staff of the Department of Bacteriology, Trinity College, Dublin, where the research was carried out, for the help and facilities given.

I would like to thank all those general practitioners in Dublin who co-operated by the early notification of cases and in other ways. Finally, I wish to record my appreciation to the Statistics Branch, Department of Industry and Commerce, for their interest and kindness in furnishing a valuable report.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , January 1945 , pp. 37 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1945

References

REFERENCES

Andrewes, F. W. & Inman, A. C. (1919). Spec. Rep. Ser. Med. Res. Coun., Lond., no. 42, p. 37.Google Scholar
Bamforth, J. (1936). J. Hyg., Camb., 36, 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barenberg, L. H., Levy, W. & Grand, M. J. H. (1936). J. Amer. Med. Ass. 106, 1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, W. H. (1938). J. Amer. Med. Ass. 110, 1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biocca, F. & Cammarella, C. (1939). Ann. Igiene (sper.), 49, 633.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. S. K. (1938). J. Hyg., Camb., 38, 477.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. S. K. (1939). J. R. Army Med. Cps, 72, 85.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. S. K. (1940). Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, F. H. A. & Warren, S. H. (1929). J. Hyg., Camb., 28, 35.Google Scholar
Clayton, F. H. A. & Warren, S. H. (1930). J. Hyg., Camb., 29, 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costello, J. P. & Lind, H. E. (1939). Southern Med. J. 32, 620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowley, N., Downey, A. W., Fulton, F. & Wilson, G. S. (1941). Lancet, 2, 590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, G. A. & De Holl, G. (1935). J. Infect. Dis. 56, 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de, Roda (1939). J.P.I. Med. Ass. 19, 73.Google Scholar
Duvai, W. & Bassett, V. H. (1904). Stud. Rockefeller Inst. Med. Res. 2, 7.Google Scholar
Duval, W. & Shorer, E. H. (1904). Stud. Rockefeller Inst. Med. Res. 2, 42.Google Scholar
Dudgeon, L. S. (1924). J. Hyg., Camb., 22, 348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudgeon, L. S. (1925). J. Hyg., Camb., 25, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudgeon, L. S. & Pulvertaft, R. J. V. (1927). J. Hyg., Camb., 26, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fothergill, L. D. (1929). J. Infect. Dis. 45, 393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, M. & Wronker, B. M. (1938). J. Amer. Med. Ass. 110, 563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, A. V., Watt, J., Kolodny, M. H. & De Capito, T. (1940). Amer. J. Publ. Hlth, 30, 558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hynes, M. (1940). Lancet, 1, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hynes, M. (1942). J. Path. Bact. 47, 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, F. S., Orcult, M. & Little, R. B. (1931). J. Bact. 23, 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J. A., Cummings, P. L. & Morrow, N. (1932). J. Infect. Dis. 50, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kliglar, I. J. (1918). J. Bact. 3, 441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leifson, E. (1935). J. Path. Bact. 40, 581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNally, P. A. (1942). Irish J. Med. Sci. p. 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metchnikoff, E. (1914). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 28, 89.Google Scholar
Morgan, H. de R. & Ledingham, J. C. G. (1909). Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. (Epidem. Sect.).Google Scholar
Nabarro, D. & Edwards, D. G. F. (1939). J. Path. Bact. 49, 515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neter, E. & Heide, A. M. (1940). Amer. J. Hyg. 31, 69.Google Scholar
Pisu, I. (1939). G. Batt. Immun. 22, 891.Google Scholar
Pisu, I. (1939). G. Batt. Immun. 23, 42.Google Scholar
Sachs, A. (1939). J. R. Army Med. Cps, 73, 235.Google Scholar
Sandiford, B. R. (1935). J. Path. Bact. 41, 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smellie, J. M. (1939). Lancet, 1, 969, 1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, E. V. (1941). Amer. J. Hyg. 33, 82.Google Scholar
Schubert, O. & David, E. (1935). Med. Klin. 31, 979.Google Scholar
Stritar, J. & Jordan, E. O. (1935). J. Infect. Dis. 56, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topley, W. C. C. & Wilson, G. S. (1936). Principles of Bacteriology and Immunity.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, W. J. (1938). J. Hyg., Camb., 38, 507.Google Scholar
Wollstein, M. & Dewey, G. (1904). Stud. Rockefeller Inst. Med. Res. 2, 55.Google Scholar