No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
An Unexplained Discrepancy between the Actual and Expected Yield of Virus from Avian Tumours and its Implications
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 July 2018
Extract
For many years now the filterable viruses have been considered as a possible cause of cancer, though such a theory has never found favour with the majority of pathologists. Definite proof of a causative virus has in turn been found for many avian tumours (review in Foulds, 1934), rabbit fibromas (Shope, 1932), rabbit papillomas (Shope, 1933), frog kidney tumours (Lucké, 1938), and the mammary tumours of mice (Bittner, 1937), and there is some evidence that certain other mouse tumours may depend on the presence of a milk-transmitted factor similar to that responsible for the mammary carcinomas first investigated. Many experiments have been carried out by numerous workers to demonstrate a causative virus in other types of neoplasms, but usually with negative results, and the successes sometimes claimed have not been confirmed by other workers. Negative results such as this are always unsatisfactory when, as in these cases, the true ætiology is unknown, and arguments for and against a virus-like entity as a cause of cancer continue to be urged by both sides. Two excellent modern statements of the case for a virus ætiology of neoplasms are given by Rous (1943) and Oberling (1942). An essential point in this argument is to offer reasons why the virus may be difficult or impossible to demonstrate in spontaneous neoplasms. Among these may be mentioned Andrewes' (1939) conception of a non-infective “toothless” virus; another is the well-known fact that even the classical virus-induced tumour, the Rous No. 1 sarcoma, often produces tumours in which it is impossible to demonstrate the presence of the virus (e.g. Gye and Andrewes, 1926; Carr, 1942, 1944).
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences , Volume 62 , Issue 3 , January 1945 , pp. 243 - 247
- Copyright
- Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1945
References
REFERENCES TO LITERATURE
Amies, C. R., 1937. “The particulate nature of avian sarcoma agents,” Journ. Path. Bact., XLIV, 141–166.Google Scholar
Amies, C. R., and Carr, J. G., 1939. “Immunological experiments with highly concentrated suspensions of the Rous 1 tumour-producing agent,” Journ. Path. Bad., XLIX, 497–513.Google Scholar
Andrewes, C. H., 1936. “Evidence for the presence of virus in a non-filterable tar sarcoma of the fowl,” Journ. Path. Bact., XLIII, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrewes, C. H., 1939. “Latent virus infections and their possible relevance to the cancer problem” Proc. Roy. Soc. Med., XXXIII, 75–86.Google Scholar
Baker, S. L., and McIntosh, J., 1927. “The influence of ferment action upon the infectivity of the Rous sarcoma,” Brit. Journ. Exp. Path., VIII, 257–263.Google Scholar
Bittner, J. J., 1937. “Mammary tumours in mice in relation to nursing,” Amer. Journ. Cancer, XXX, 530–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, F. M., 1934. “The phage-inactivating agent of bacterial extracts,” Journ. Path. Bact., XXXIII, 258–299.Google Scholar
Carr, J. G., 1942. “Observations upon spontaneously recurring Rous No. 1 tumours,” Brit. Journ. Exp. Path., XXIII, 206–213.Google Scholar
Carr, J. G., 1943. “The relation between age, structure, and agent content of Rous No. 1 sarcomas,” Brit. Journ. Exp. Path., XXIV, 133–137.Google Scholar
Carr, J. G., 1944. “Experiments on the inhibitor occurring in Rous No. 1 sarcomas,” Brit. Journ. Exp. Path., XXV, 56–62.Google Scholar
Claude, A., and Rothen, A., 1942. “Properties of the causative agent of a chicken tumour. XIV. Relation between a tumour nucleoprotein and the active principle,” Journ. Exp. Med., LXXI, 619–633.Google Scholar
Doerr, R., Bleyer, L., and Schmidt, G. W., 1932. “Über das Verhalten des Virus des Rous-Sarkom in der Blutzirkulation refractärer und empfänglicher Tiere,” Zeits. Krebsforsch., XXXVI, 256–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elford, W. J., and Andrewes, C. H., 1935. “Estimation of the size of a fowl tumour virus by filtration through graded membranes,” Brit. Journ. Exp. Path., XVI, 61–66.Google Scholar
Elford, W. J., and Andrewes, C. H., 1936. “Centrifugation studies: II. The viruses of vaccinia, influenza and Rous sarcoma,” Brit. Journ. Exp. Path., XVII, 422–430.Google Scholar
Foulds, L., 1934. “Filterable tumours of fowls; a critical review” Scient. Rep. Invest. Imp. Cancer Res. Ed. (Supp.).Google Scholar
Foulds, L., 1938. “Observations on non-filterable fowl tumours. Production of neutralizing sera against filtrates of Rous sarcoma 1, by non-infectious extracts of a sarcoma induced by 1:2:5:6-dibenz-anthracene,” Amer. Journ. Cancer, XXXI, 404–413.Google Scholar
Fränkel, E., 1927. “Untersuchungen über die Roustumoren beim Huhn,” Zeits. Krebsforsch., XXV, 407–420.Google Scholar
Fränkel, E., and Mawson, C. A., 1937. “Further studies on the agent of the Rous fowl sarcoma: A. Ultracentrifugation experiments; B. Experiments with lipoid fraction,” Brit. Journ. Exp. Path., XVIII, 454–460.Google Scholar
Fränkel, E., 1938. “Sostanze inibitrici nella frazione lipoidale del tessuto disseccato di sarcoma di Rous,” Tumori, XII, 114–119.Google Scholar
Gottschalk, R. G., 1943. “Observations on a chemically induced chicken tumour containing an antigen related to that of a leukosis sarcoma agent,” Cancer Res., III, 649–667.Google Scholar
Gye, W. E., and Andrewes, C. H., 1926. “A study of the Rous fowl sarcoma No. 1. I. Filterability,” Brit. Journ. Exp. Path., VII, 81–87.Google Scholar
Gye, W. E., and Purdy, W. J., 1930. “The Rous sarcoma No. 1: loss of filtrate activity at incubator temperature: protection by means of hydrocyanic acid,” Brit. Journ. Exp. Path., XI, 282–286.Google Scholar
Kidd, J. G., Beard, J. W., and Rous, P., 1936. “Serological reactions with a virus causing rabbit papillomas which become cancerous. I. Tests of the blood of animals carrying the papilloma,” Journ. Exp. Med., LXIV, 63–71.Google Scholar
Levene, P., and Frisch, A. W., 1934. “On specific inhibition of bacteriophage action by bacterial extracts,” Journ. Exp. Med., LIX, 213–228.Google Scholar
Lucké, B., 1938. “Carcinoma in the Leopard frog; its probable causation by a virus,” Journ. Exp. Med., LXVIII, 457–463.Google Scholar
Murphy, J. B., and Sturm, E., 1932. “Properties of the causative agent of a chicken tumor. IV. Association of an inhibitor with the active principle,” Journ. Exp. Med., LXI, 107–118.Google Scholar
Pollard, A., 1938. “The chemical constitution of the active agent of Rous sarcoma No. 1,” Brit. Journ. Exp. Path., XIX, 124–229.Google Scholar
Pollard, A., and Amies, C. R., 1938. “An investigation of the alleged tumour-producing properties of lipoid material extracted from Rous sarcoma desiccates,” Journ. Exp. Path., LVIII, 198–204.Google Scholar
Rous, P., 1943. “The nearer causes of cancer,” Journ. Amer. Med. Assoc., CXXII, 573–581.Google Scholar
Sanfelice, F., 1927. “Einschlusskörper bei einem Hühnersarkon,” Zent. Bakt., Abt. I, CIII, 415–423.Google Scholar
Shemin, D., Sproul, E. E., and Jobling, J. W., 1940. “Studies of the transmissible agent of the Rous sarcoma 1. Precipitation with basic proteins,” Journ. Exp. Med., LXXII, 697–705.Google Scholar
Shope, R. E., 1932. “A filterable virus causing a tumor-like condition in rabbits and its relationship to virus myxomatosum,” Journ. Exp. Med., LVI, 803–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shope, R. E., 1933. “Infectious papillomatosis of rabbits,” Journ. Exp. Med., LVIII, 607–621.Google Scholar
Tenenbaum, E., and Doljanski, L., 1941. “Nuclear changes in Rous sarcoma cells cultivated in vitro
,” Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med., XLVII, 236–239.Google Scholar
Turevich, E. I., 1939. “Intranuclear inclusions in the cells of fowl sarcoma,” Bull. Biol. Med. Exp. U.S.S.R., VIII, 309–311.Google Scholar