Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-20T19:03:25.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observations on brucella species based on the examination of 800 strains*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

J. C. Cruickshank  and
B. Madge
B. Madge
Affiliation:
Brucella Reference Laboratory, Public Health Laboratory Service, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
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.

An account is given of the examination by biochemical and serological methods of 800 strains of brucella sent for identification to the Brucella Reference Laboratory of the Public Health Laboratory Service.

Most of the strains were isolated from milk in Great Britain, but strains from other countries, and from cases of undulant fever, were also examined.

Of 738 strains from milk in Britain, 680 were Br. abortus, of which sixty-two (9·1 %) were of a type inhibited by all the usual test-dyes in their customary concentrations. Thirty strains of Br. melitensis, behaving typically in all laboratory tests, were obtained from milk from individual cows, herds or bulk sources. Br. melitensis has now been identified from twenty-four separate farms and one Tuberculin Tested bulk supply in this country. Eighteen strains behaved like Br. abortus in biochemical tests, but serologically like Br. melitensis.

Of the relatively small number of strains isolated from patients with undulant fever in Britain, all those from persons infected in this country were Br. abortus, with the exception of two laboratory infections with Br. melitensis. The organisms isolated in Britain from patients infected abroad comprised three strains of Br. melitensis, one strain behaving biochemically like Br. abortus and serologically like Br. melitensis, and two behaving biochemically like Br. melitensis and serologically like Br. abortus. One of the latter was from a patient infected in southern Italy, and the examination of nineteen strains from that country showed that thirteen were of this type. The thionin-resistant type of Br. abortus was identified several times, from undulant fever cases in Rhodesia, Kenya and Italy. No strains of Br. suis were observed.

I wish to thank the numerous bacteriologists who sent cultures and provided details of their isolation. A few submitted large numbers of strains and enabled a general picture of the prevailing types to be obtained. I am grateful to these and to the other bacteriologists who provided information about the herds from which Br. melitensis was isolated, in particular Dr P. H. Martin and Dr J. A. Sykes (Ipswich), Dr L. M. Dowsett (Norwich), Dr J. Kennedy (Newcastle, then at Stafford), Dr J. H. C. Walker (Luton), Dr E. H. Gillespie and Dr N. S. Mair (Leicester) and Dr J. E. Jameson (Brighton). I have also to acknowledge the help of Dr A. W. Stableforth, Director of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Veterinary Laboratory, who provided much bacteriological and veterinary information about the infected herds.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , March 1954 , pp. 105 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1954

References

REFERENCES

Bauer, M. (1949). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Clarke, P. H. (1953). J. gen. Microbiol. 8, 397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruickshank, J. C. (1948). J. Path. Bact. 60, 328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple-Champneys, W. (1953). Vet. Rec. 65, 99.Google Scholar
Drimmelen, G. C. van (1953). S. Afr. J. Sci. 49, 299.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S. J. (1930). J. comp. Path. 43, 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoyer, B. H. (1950). Brucellosis. Amer. Ass. for Advancement of Science, Washington.Google Scholar
Huddleson, I. F. (1929). Mich. State College, agric. exp. Sta., Tech. Bull., No. 100.Google Scholar
Huddleson, I. F. (1931). Amer. J. publ. Hlth, 21, 491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleson, I. F. (1943). Brucellosis in Man and Animals. The Commonwealth Fund, New York.Google Scholar
Huddleson, I. F. (1952). Studies in Brucellosis, III. Michigan State College, Memoir no. 6.Google Scholar
Levine, H. B. & Wilson, J. B. (1949). J. infect. Dis. 84, 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, D. H. (1944). J. comp. Path. 54, 248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacheco, G. & de Mello, M. T. (1950). J. Bact. 59, 689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickett, M. J., Nelson, E. L., Hoyt, R. E. & Eisenstein, B. E. (1952). J. lab. clin. Med. 40, 200.Google Scholar
Pickett, M. J., Nelson, E. L. & Liberman, J. D. (1953). J. Bact. 66, 210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polding, J. B. (1950). Indian vet. J., 27, 170.Google Scholar
Renoux, G. (1952 a). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 82, 556.Google Scholar
Renoux, G. (1952 b). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 83, 814.Google Scholar
Renoux, G. (1952 c). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 82, 289.Google Scholar
Renoux, G. & Carrère, L. (1952). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 82, 277.Google Scholar
Renoux, G. & Quatrefages, H. (1951). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 80, 182.Google Scholar
Report (1953). W.H.O. Tech. Rep. Ser. no. 67.Google Scholar
Rita, G. & Levi Della Vida, B. (1951). Nuovi Ann. d'Igiene e Microbiol. 2, 324.Google Scholar
Sanders, E. & Warner, J. (1951). J. Bact. 62, 591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaff, A. v.d. & Rosa, M. (1940). Ned.-ind. Bl. Diergeneesk. 52, 1.Google Scholar
Veazie, L. & Meyer, K. F. (1936). J. infect. Dis. 58, 280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, G. S. (1933). J. Hyg., Camb., 33, 516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar