Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T17:52:52.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Paratyphoid Group of Bacilli

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

F. A. Bainbridge  and
R. A. O'brien
F. A. Bainbridge
Affiliation:
(From The Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine.)
R. A. O'brien
Affiliation:
(From The Lister Institute of Preventive 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.

1. The term “paratyphoid group of bacilli” has been confined in the present enquiry to those strains which in their cultural characters and agglutination reactions are indistinguishable from B. suipestifer and B. paratyphosus (B). B. enteritidis Gaertner and B. paratyphosus (A) are excluded.

2. The strains of bacilli belonging to the “paratyphoid” group can be separated into two classes by means of the absorption method, namely one group identical with recognised, standard strains of B. suipestifer and one identical with standard strains of B. paratyphosus (B); and we regard these two bacilli as separate organisms.

3. In our experience, B. suipestifer has been found only in food or in outbreaks of acute illness attributable to food-poisoning, whereas B. paratyphosus (B) has been found in cases of paratyphoid fever or in persistent paratyphoid “carriers.”.

4. We are disposed to put forward the suggestion indicated by these observations, that these two organisms have a different distribution in nature, the normal habitat of B. suipestifer being the alimentary canal of the pig (and other animals) and of food derived from such animals, whereas the normal habitat of B. paratyphosus (B) is the human alimentary tract (including the gall-bladder).

5. The examination of cultures from the faeces and urine of 300 typhoid convalescents was completely negative, neither B. suipestifer nor B. paratyphosus (B) being obtained. These observations confirm those of other writers, and, apart from carrier cases, the occurrence of B. paratyphosus (B) in healthy human beings appears to be unknown in this country.

Our thanks are due to Drs Fisher, Trautmann, Uhlenhuth, Williams, Rommeler, Prigge, Schern, Friedrichs, Savage and Fowler, who have very kindly supplied us with strains of bacilli for investigation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 1911 , pp. 68 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1911

References

Bainbridge, F. A. (1909). On the paratyphoid and food poisoning bacilli, and on the nature and efficiency of certain rat viruses. Journ. of Path. and Bact. Vol. XIII. p. 443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bainbridge, F. A. (1910). An outbreak of gastro-enteritis due to B. paratyphosus (B). Brit. Med. Journ. Vol. II. p. 1515.Google Scholar
Bainbridge, and Dudfield, (1911). An outbreak of gastro-enteritis due to B. paratyphosus (B). Journ. of Hygiene, Vol. XI. p. 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, (1906). Arb. a. d. Kaiserlich. Gesundheitsamte, Berlin, Vol. XXIV. p. 227.Google Scholar
Boycott, A. E. (1906). Observations on the bacteriology of paratyphoid fever, and on the reactions of typhoid and paratyphoid sera. Journ. of Hygiene, Vol. VI. p. 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castellani, A. (1902). Die Agglutination bei gemischter Infection und die Diagnose der letzteren. Zeitschr. f. Hygiene, Leipzig, Vol. XL. p. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conradi, (1904). Über Mischinfection durch Typhus- und Paratyphusbazillen. Deutsche med. Wochenschr. p. 1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conradi, (1909). Klin. Jahrbuch. Vol. XXI. p. 421.Google Scholar
De Nobele, (1898). Kolle u. Wassermann's Handb. Vol. II. p. 655. (V. Ermengen.)Google Scholar
Durham, (1898). An address on the present knowledge of outbreaks due to meat poisoning. Brit. Med. Journ. Vol. II. p. 1797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyfer, and Kayser, (1902). Eine Endemie von Paratyphus. München. med. Wochenschr. p. 1692.Google Scholar
Fischer, (1902). Zur Aetiologie der sogenannten Fleischvergiftungen. Zeitschr. f. Hyg. Vol. XXXIX. p. 447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, (1903). Zur Epidemiologie des Paratyphus. Koch's Festschrift, p. 271.Google Scholar
Gaethgens, W. (1907). Über die Bedeutung des Vorkommens der Paratyphus-bazillen (Typhus B.). Arb. a. d. Kaiserlich. Gesundheitsamte, Vol. XXV. p. 203.Google Scholar
Hamilton, (1910). The value of Opsonin determinations in the discovery of typhoid carriers. Journ. of Infect. Diseases, Vol. VII. p. 393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hübener, (1908). Über das Vorkommen von Bakterien der Paratyphus-B.gruppe in der Aussenwelt. deutsche med. Wochenschr. p. 1044.Google Scholar
Kutscher, (1906). Kolle und Wassermann's Handbuch der Pathogenen Mikroorganismen. Supplement, Bd. I. S. 655.Google Scholar
Kutscher, and Meinicke, (1906). Vergleichende Untersuchungen über Paratyphus-Enteritis und Mäusetyphusbakterien und ihre immunisatorischen Beziehungen. Zeitschr. f. Hyg. Vol. LII. p. 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lentz, (1905). Über chronische Typhusbazillenträger. Klin. Jahrb. Vol. XIV. p. 475.Google Scholar
Morgan, H. de R. (1905). Some observations upon the micro-organisms of meat and their allies. Brit. Med. Journ. Vol. I. p. 1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, H. de R. (1906). Upon the bacteriology of the summer diarrhoea of infants. Brit. Med. Journ. Vol. I. p. 908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, H. de R. (1907). Upon the bacteriology of the summer diarrhoea of infants. Brit. Med. Journ. Vol. II. p. 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, and Ledingham, (1909). Upon the bacteriology of summer diarrhoea of infants. Proc. Roy. Soc. of Med. (Epid. Section), Vol. VII.Google Scholar
O'Brien, R. A. (1910). Guinea-pigs as chronic carriers of an organism belonging to the food poisoning group. Journ. of Hygiene, Vol. X. p. 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, (1908). Report to Yorkshire Local Authorities Committee.Google Scholar
Petrie, and O'Brien, (1910). A guinea-pig epizootic associated with an organism of the food poisoning group, but probably caused by a filter passer. Journ. of Hygiene, Vol. X. p. 287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prigge, and Sachs-Müke, (1909). Paratyphusbazillenausscheidung bei Kranken und Gesunden. Klin. Jahrb. Vol. XXII. p. 237.Google Scholar
Rommeler, (1909). Über die Befunde von Paratyphusbazillen in Fleischwaren. Centralbl. f. Bakt. Orig. Vol. L. p. 501.Google Scholar
Savage, (1908—1909). Report upon the presence of paratyphoid bacilli in man. Local Govt. Board Reports, Appendix, B. No. 4, p. 316.Google Scholar
Schottmüller, (1900). Über eine das Bild des Typhus bietende Erkrnkung hervorgerufen durch typhusähnliche Bazillen. Deutsche med. Wochenschr. p. 511.Google Scholar
Schottmüller, (1901). Weitere Mitteilungen über mehrere das Bild des Typhus bietende Krankshertsfälle hervorgerufen durch typhusähnliche Bazillen (Paratyphus). Zeitschr. f. Hyg. Vol. XXXVI. p. 368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seiffert, (1909). Studien zur Salmonella Gruppe.Paratyphus-B.gruppe Zeitschr. f. Hyg. Vol. LXIII. p. 273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobernheim, (1910). Über Fleischvergiftung. Centralbl. f. Bakt. Vol. XLVII. Ref. Beit. zu. Abteil. p. 170.Google Scholar
Sobernheim, and Seligmann, (1910). Weitere Unteruchungen der Enteritisbakterien. Zeitschr. f. Immunitäts-Forschung. Vol. VI. p. 401.Google Scholar
Uhlenhuth, and Hübener, (1908). Untersuchung über das Wesen und die Bekämpfung der Schweinepest. Arb. a. d. Kaiserlich. Gesundheitsamte, Vol. XXVII. p. 425.Google Scholar
Wernicke, (1907). Die Typhusepidemie in der Stadt Posen im Jahre 1905. Klin. Jahrb. Vol. XVII. p. 163.Google Scholar
Williams, , Murray, and Rundle, (1910). Further researches into the bacteriology of epidemic summer diarrhoea. Lancet, Vol. II. p. 730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwick, and Weichel, (1910). Zur Frage des Vorkommens der sogenannten Fleisch-vergiftungserreger in Pökelfleischwaren. Arb. a. d. Kaiserlich. Gesundheitsamte, Vol. XXXIII. p. 250.Google Scholar