Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T12:03:32.052Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of Preserved Bacterial Suspensions for the Agglutination Test: With especial reference to the Enteric Fevers and Typhus Fevers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

A. Felix  and
L. Olitzki
A. Felix
Affiliation:
(From the Hadassah Medical Organisation, Bacteriological Laboratory, Rothschild Hospital, Jerusalem.)
L. Olitzki
Affiliation:
(From the Hadassah Medical Organisation, Bacteriological Laboratory, Rothschild Hospital, Jerusalem.)
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.

1. In B. typhosus, B. paratyphosus A and B, and B. enteritidis Gärtner, low concentrations of phenol and formaldehyde produce a definite inhibition of the 0 agglutination, while the H agglutination is unaltered—a fact already established many years ago in the case of B. proteus X 19.

2. Alcohol, even in high concentrations, has no such inhibitory effect.

3. Therefore, suspensions preserved in the usual way with phenol or formalin are not adequate reagents for the qualitative serum analysis in enteric fevers or for the usual diagnosis test in typhus fever.

4. Phenol and formalin suspensions are responsible for negative results of the Widal test in cases of enteric fevers which show only the 0 immune body in the serum; such cases form a considerable percentage of the total especially in typhoid fever.

5. As a routine measure in the diagnosis of enteric fevers, it is suggested that two preserved suspensions of each organism be used:

(1) an alcoholic suspension (like that of Bien and Sonntag in typhus fever) as a reagent for the 0 agglutinin, and

(2) the usual phenol or formalin suspension as a reagent for the H agglutinin.

6. The nature of the described phenomenon of inhibition is not, as yet, entirely clear.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , August 1928 , pp. 55 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1928

References

REFERENCES

Arkwright, J. A. (1921). J. Path. and Bact. 24, 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bien, Z. and Sonntag, F. (1917). Münch. med. Wehnschr. 1409.Google Scholar
Burnet, F. M. (1924). Brit. J. Exper. Pathol. 5, 251.Google Scholar
Committee upon Pathological Methods (1920). Med. Res. Council Spec. Rep. Ser. No. 51, London.Google Scholar
Csepai, K. (1917). Wien. klin. Wehnschr. 1264.Google Scholar
Dreyer, G. (1906). Hosp.-Tid. No. 19.Google Scholar
Dreyer, G. (1909). J. Pathol. and Bact. 13, 331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, A. (1924, 1). Ztschr. f. Immunitätsforsch. 39, 127.Google Scholar
Felix, A. (1924, 2). J. Immunol. 9, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ficker, M. (1903). Berl. klin. Wehnschr. No. 45.Google Scholar
Paltauf, R. (1913). Handbuch von Kolle und Wassermann, 2, Pt 1, 483.Google Scholar
Pijper, A. (1923). South African Medical Record, February 10th and 24th.Google Scholar
Proescher, F. (1902). Centrlbl. f. Bakt. Orig. 31, 400.Google Scholar
Sachs, H. (1917). Deutsch. med. Wehnschr. 964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiff, F. (1917). Deutsch. med. Wehnschr. 1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiff, F. (1922). Ztschr.f. Immunitätsforsch. 33, 511.Google Scholar
Schiff, F. (1925). Klin. Wehnschr. 4, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiff, F. and Nathorf, E. (1920). Ztschr.f. Immunitätsforsch. 30, 482.Google Scholar
Spät, W. (1922). Centrlbl. f. Bakt. 88, 5.Google Scholar
Weil, E. and Felix, A. (1917). Wien. klin. Wehnschr. 30, 1509.Google Scholar
Weil, E. and Felix, A. (1920). Ztschr.f. Immunitätsforsch. 29, 24.Google Scholar
White, P. B. (1926) Med. Res. Council Spec. Rep. Ser. No. 103, London.Google Scholar