Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T19:42:28.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On a pleuropneumonia-like organism in lung lesions of rats, with notes on the clinical and pathological features of the underlying condition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Emmy Klieneberger  and
Dorothy B Steabben
Dorothy B Steabben
Affiliation:
From the Bacteriological Department, Lister Institute, London
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. A pleuropneumonia-like organism resembling L1 in all characteristic features has been isolated from a well-known lung condition of rats of hitherto obscure etiology in seventeen out of nineteen cases.

2. Morphological elements which presumably initiate growth in culture have been demonstrated microscopically in the lesions.

3. Streptobacillus moniliformis (i.e. L1 plus Streptobacillus) is a frequent inhabitant of the nasopharynx of rats with lung lesions; it may secondarily invade the lungs as it is found in severe cases together with the L1 organism.

4. An account is presented of the clinical and pathological features of the underlying condition with which the newly discovered bacteriological findings are associated.

5. The precise role played by the L1 organism in the pathogenesis of the lung lesions in rats has still to be established and further experiments with this end in view are in progress.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , January 1937 , pp. 143 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1937

References

REFERENCES

Blake, F. G. (1916). J. Exp. Med 22, 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, F. S. (1922). J. Exp. Med 35, 361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klieneberger, E. (1935). J. Path. Bact. 40, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klieneberger, E. (1936). J. Path. Bact. 42, 587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macalister, G. H. & St John Brooks, R. (1914). J. Hygiene, 14, 316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, K. F. (1928). The Newer Knowledge of Bacteriology and Immunology. p. 253., Univ. Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, J. B. (1930). J. Exp. Med. 52, 873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, J. B. (1930a). J. Inf. Dis. 46, 64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, J. B. (1931). J. Bact. 21, 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, J. B. (1932). J. Bact. 26, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, J. B. & Gowen, J. W. (1930). J. Inf. Dis. 46, 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passey, R. D., Leese, A. & Knox, J. C. (1936). J. Path. Bact. 42, 425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrie, G. F. & Macalister, G. H. (1911). Report of the Local Government Board London, Appendix A, p.91.Google Scholar
Schottmüller, H. (1914). Dermat. Wschr. 58, Suppl.77.Google Scholar
Shoetensack, H. M. (1934). Kitasato Arch. Exp. Med. 11, 277.Google Scholar
Shoetensack, H. M. (1936). Kitasato Arch. Exp. Med. 13, 175.Google Scholar
Shoetensack, H. M. (1936a). Kitasato Arch. Exp. Med. 13, 269.Google Scholar
Smith, TH. (1918). J. Exp. Med. 28, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, TH. (1921). J. Exp. Med. 33, 441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, TH. (1921a). J. Exp. Med. 34, 593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strangeways, W. I. (1933). J. Path. Bact. 32, 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tumjicliff, R. (1916). J. Inf. Dis. 19, 767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wroblbwski, W. (1936). Zbl. Bakt. Orig. I. Abt. 136, 172.Google Scholar