Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T15:50:59.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Reputed Antigenic Relationship between Organisms of the Brucella Group on the One Hand, and of the Pasteurella, Pfeifferella and Proteus Groups on the Other

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

G. S. Wilson
G. S. Wilson
Affiliation:
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.

1. Provided that due precautions are taken to ascertain the normal level of agglutinins in a given host, and that antigenically smooth strains are used, there is every reason to believe that the occurrence of agglutinins in a titre above the normal range of variation is due to infection—latent, active or past—with the specific organism in question, or in a few instances with an organism, usually of the same genus, sharing a similar antigen.

2. This conclusion may have to be modified for the occurrence of agglutinins to Proteus OX19 in human typhus sera, since the exact relationship of this organism to Rickettsia prowazeki is still doubtful. If, however, future work shows the truth of Felix's (1933) contention that serological types of Proteus X correspond to serological types of typhus virus (Rickettsia), even this apparent exception will fall within the general rule.

3. The examination of sixty-four horse and fifty-three cattle sera, and the performance of numerous cross-agglutination and cross-absorption experiments with rabbit and horse antisera, lend no support to the suggestion made by certain workers of the existence of an antigenic relationship between Brucella strains on the one hand, and strains of Pfeifferella, Pasteurella and Proteus X on the other.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , October 1934 , pp. 361 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1934

References

REFERENCES

Craigie, J. (1931). J. Immunol. 21, 417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darsin, E. (1930). Zbl. Bakt. 115, 457.Google Scholar
Emmel, M. W. and Boevers, M. L. (1932). J. Amer. Vet. Med. Ass. 81, 92.Google Scholar
Felix, A. (1929). J. Hygiene, 28, 418.Google Scholar
Felix, A. (1930). A System of Bacteriology, Med. Res. Council, London, 7, 415.Google Scholar
Felix, A. (1931). J. Hygiene, 31, 382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, A. (1933). Trans. Roy. Soc. Trop. Med. 27, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, A. and Olitzki, L. (1928). J. Hygiene, 28, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heymann, B. and Yang, L. (1932). Z. Hyg. Infektkr. 114, 545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobitz, E. (1930). Klin. Wschr. 9, 654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, E. O. (1933). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 30, 446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoth, M. (1930). Deuts. Tierärztl. Wschr. 38, 822.Google Scholar
Köbe, K. (1933). Deuts. Tierärztl. Wschr. 41, 241.Google Scholar
Lovell, R. (1932). J. Comp. Path. Ther. 45, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magliulo, L. (1933). Giorn. Batt. Immunol. 10, 284.Google Scholar
Mallmann, W. L. (1930). J. Amer. Vet. Med. Ass. 77, 636.Google Scholar
Morellini, M. (1933). Riforma Med. 49, 1697.Google Scholar
Nicolle, C. and Comte, C. (1910). Bull. Soc. Path. Exot. 3, 214.Google Scholar
Priestley, F. W. (1933). J. Comp. Path. Ther. 46, 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riding, D. (1934). Bull. Office Internat. d' Hyg. Pub. 26, 90.Google Scholar
Süpfle, K. and Hofmann, P. (1932). Arch. Hyg. Bakt. 108, 113.Google Scholar
Weil, E. (1911). Biochem. Z. 33, 56.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. S. and Miles, A. A. (1932). Brit. J. Exp. Path. 13, 1.Google Scholar
Zeller, H. (1931). Bull. Off. Int. Épizooties, 5, 84.Google Scholar