Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T14:10:01.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation of host resistance to influenza viruses in the allantois

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

D. O. White  and
S. Fazekas de St Groth
D. O. White
Affiliation:
The Department of Microbiology, The John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National UniversityCanberra, Australia
S. Fazekas de St Groth
Affiliation:
The Department of Microbiology, The John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National UniversityCanberra, Australia
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. Methods are described for altering the susceptibility of the surviving allantois to infection by influenza viruses.

2. Under natural conditions susceptibility is a linear function of age between 10 and 18 days of incubation. The drop is 0·11 log10 unit per day for all strains of influenza tested.

3. In whole eggs this decline is masked by the effect of acid allantoic fluid which prevents infection when the pH falls below 6. The effect is not directed against the virus particle, nor does it do permanent damage to the cell, as surviving tissues are equally susceptible whatever the pH of the allantoic fluid that bathed them in ovo.

4. Surviving membranes can be made less susceptible by incubating the eggs at 35° rather than 38° C.; by maintenance for 24 hr. in vitro; by use of deficient or inappropriate medium. These methods lower susceptibility more for some strains than for others.

5. All treatments which lower susceptibility also increase its variation from egg to egg.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , March 1959 , pp. 123 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

References

REFERENCES

Daniels, J. B., Eaton, M. D. & Perry, M. E. (1952). J. Immunol. 69, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, B. (1953). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 85, 222.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, B. (1954). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 86, 710.Google Scholar
Fazekas De St Groth, S. (1955). J. Hyg., Camb., 53, 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazekas De St Groth, S. & White, D. O. (1958 a). J. Hyg., Camb., 56, 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazekas De St Groth, S. & White, D. O. (1958 b). J. Hyg., Camb., 56, 523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazekas De St Groth, S. & White, D. O. (1958).Google Scholar
Gard, S. (1953). The Nature of Virus Multiplication, p. 211. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, D. O. (1959). In preparation.Google Scholar