Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T01:09:38.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strain differences in the Newcastle disease virus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

L. W. Macpherson  and
R. H. A. Swain
L. W. Macpherson
Affiliation:
Department of Bacteriology, Edinburgh University
R. H. A. Swain
Affiliation:
Department of Bacteriology, Edinburgh University
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.

The biological characters of eight strains of the Newcastle disease virus, isolated in different parts of the world between 1933 and 1951, have been studied and compared in detail.

Two types of the virus have been distinguished, one from the Newcastle disease prevalent in Europe and Australia, the other from that occurring in the United States of America.

Viruses of the first type are highly virulent, multiply rapidly and successively develop the properties of infectivity, haemagglutination and haemolysis. Their haemagglutination pattern is constant and wide; they profoundly modify human group O erythrocytes, and they are antigenically homogeneous.

Viruses of the second type are of weaker virulence. They grow at a slower rate in the allantoic cavity of the chick embryo, and the development of their characters is retarded; they have a reduced haemagglutination pattern and only a minimum capacity to modify human group O cells. Antigenically strains of the second type are homogeneous.

From haemagglutination inhibition and absorption studies it is concluded that major antigens are shared by both types, and that the first type possesses one or more antigens lacking in the second.

The highly virulent Canadian TWISS strain possesses the characters of the first type and an antigenic constitution with features of both types.

The significance of the results is discussed in relation to the ecology of Newcastle disease.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , June 1956 , pp. 234 - 245
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

References

REFERENCES

Albiston, H. E. & Gorrie, C. J. R. (1942). Aust. vet. J. 18, 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. G. (1947). Aust. J. exp. Biol. med. Sci. 25, 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beach, J. R. (1944). Science, 100, 361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanco, M. M. (1949). Bol. Cons. Col. vet. Esp. 3, 355.Google Scholar
Blaxland, J. D. (1951). Vet. Rec. 63, 731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandly, C. A., Moses, H. E., Jungherr, E. L. & Jones, E. E. (1946). Amer. J. vet. Res. 7, 289.Google Scholar
Burnet, F. M. (1942). Aust. J. exp. Biol. med. Sci. 20, 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnet, F. M. & Anderson, S. G. (1946). Brit. J. exp. Path. 27, 236.Google Scholar
Burnet, F. M., McCrea, J. F. & Stone, J. D. (1946). Brit. J. exp. Path. 27, 228.Google Scholar
Cunningham, C. H. (1951). Amer. J. vet. Res. 12, 129.Google Scholar
Doyle, T. M. (1927). J. comp. Path. 40, 144.Google Scholar
Evans, A. S. (1950). J. Immunol. 64, 411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, J. H., Kessel, B. & Fabricant, J. (1950). Cornell Vet. 40, 93.Google Scholar
Gordon, L. E., Birkeland, J. M. & Dodd, M. C. (1952). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 80, 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, R. P., Upton, E. & Brandly, C. A. (1951). J. Bact. 62, 545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitchner, S. B. & Johnson, E. P. (1948). Vet. Med. 43, 525.Google Scholar
Jansen, J. & Kunst, H. (1952). J. Amer. vet. med. Ass. 120, 201.Google Scholar
Jensen, K. E. & Francis, T. (1953). J. exp. Med. 98, 619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jungherr, E. L., Tyzzer, E. E., Brandly, C. A. & Moses, H. E. (1946). Amer. vet. Rev. 7, 250.Google Scholar
Mitchell, C. A. & Walker, R. V. L. (1951). Canadian J. comp. Med. 15, 226.Google Scholar
Nadel, M. K. & Eisenstark, A. (1955). J. Bact. 69, 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, L. J. & Muench, H. (1938). Amer. J. Hyg. 27, 493.Google Scholar
Salk, J. E. (1944). J. Immunol. 49, 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. E. (1950). Vet. Rec. 62, 33.Google Scholar
Zuydam, D. M. (1952). J. Amer. vet. med. Ass. 120, 88.Google Scholar