Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T07:38:12.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Döderlein's Vaginal Bacillus: A Contribution to the Study of the Lacto-Bacilli

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Robert Cruickshank
Robert Cruickshank
Affiliation:
(From the Bacteriology Department of the Institute of Pathology, Royal Infirmary and University, Glasgow.)
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.

It is concluded from a study of the morphological and cultural characters of 60 strains of Döderlein's vaginal bacillus that the organism belongs to the lacto-bacillus group of bacteria.

Primary culture of Döderlein's bacillus may be readily obtained on lactose blood agar incubated aerobically provided the vaginal flora is of “Grade A” type, but its subsequent propagation on artificial culture media is less likely to be successful.

Three morphological types of Döderlein's bacillus are recognised. Cultural and fermentative tests show that these types are all biologically similar.

There is no serological homogeneity among the strains of Döderlein's bacillus, although there was some evidence of a serological relationship among the members of the commonest morphological type. The same serological type tends to persist in the vagina throughout pregnancy. Döderlein's bacillus and lacto-bacilli derived from other sources are not serologically identical.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , July 1931 , pp. 375 - 381
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1931

References

REFERENCES

Albus, W. R. and Holm, M. L. (1925). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. and Med. 22, 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruickshank, R. and Baird, D. (1930). Edin. Med. J. 37, 135 (Proc. of Edin. Obst. Soc.).Google Scholar
Cruickshank, J. and Cruickshank, R. (1930). System of Bacteriology. 8. (In press.)Google Scholar
Gordon, J. and McLeod, J. W. (1928). J. Path. and Bact. 31, 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jötten, K. W. (1922). Arch. f. Hyg. 91, 143.Google Scholar
Lash, A. F. and Kaplan, B. (1926). J. Infect. Dis. 38, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, J., James, W. W. and Barlow, P. L. (1924). Brit. J. Exper. Path. 6, 175.Google Scholar
McLeod, J. W. and Gordon, J. (1922). J. Path. and Bact. 25, 139.Google Scholar
McLeod, J. W. and Gordon, J. (1923). J. Path. and Bact. 26, 326.Google Scholar
Rahe, A. H. (1918). J. Bact. 3, 420.Google Scholar
Rother, W. (1922). Centralbl. f. Bact. 1. Orig. 88, 558.Google Scholar
Smith, J. (1926). J. Hygiene, 25, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, S. (1928). J. Infect. Dis. 43, 218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar