Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g5fl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T23:56:05.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Life History of Amoebae of the Limax Type in the Human Intestine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

N. H. Swellengrebel  and
Raden Mas Mangkoe Winoto
N. H. Swellengrebel
Affiliation:
(From the Section of Tropical Hygiene, Colonial Institute, Amsterdam. Director: Prof. J. J. van Loghem.)
Raden Mas Mangkoe Winoto
Affiliation:
(From the Section of Tropical Hygiene, Colonial Institute, Amsterdam. Director: Prof. J. J. van Loghem.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At the time investigators were trying to cultivate the amoebae of the human intestine (Entamoeba coli and E. histolytica), amoebae were often encountered in the cultures which were referred to the species “Amoeba limax,” with many sub-species. Subsequently it was found that the cysts of these cultural amoebae are very common and that it is possible to cultivate amoebae from nearly every source. Consequently it was concluded that these forms do not really live in the human intestine but that the cultural amoebae developed from cysts, occasionally ingested with food, the cysts not having developed in the intestine. This is Walker's (1911) view, but Chatton and Lalung Bonaire (1912) hold that the limax amoebae (hereafter called limax) can live in the intestine, not only in the form of cysts but also as motile amoebae. Cultures made from these stools showed amoebae and uninucleate cysts. The latter were not found in the faeces, which showed only the motile stages, without however any signs of division. The cultures showed this amoeba to be of the common Umax-type with a vesicular nucleus containing a large karyosome. These observations are important because they contradict the hypothesis that Entamoebae when cultivated show the features of limax.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , February 1917 , pp. 266 - 273
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1917

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Chatton, and Lalung, Bonaire (1912). Bull. Soc. path. exot. v. 135.Google Scholar
Gauducheau, (1912). Bull. Soc. méd. chirurg. de I'Indochine, II. 525.Google Scholar
Gauducheau, (1913). Bull. Soc. path. exot. vi. 560.Google Scholar
James, (1915). Ann. Trap. Med. and Parasit. VIII. 133.Google Scholar
Job, and Hirtzmann, (1916). C.R. soc. biol. LXXIX. 421.Google Scholar
Kuenen, and Swellengrebel, (1913). Centralbl. f. Bakteriol. 1. Abt. LXXI. 278.Google Scholar
Mathis, (1913 a). Bull. soc. méd. chirurg. de l'Indochine, IV. No. 7.Google Scholar
Mathis, (1913 b). Bull. soc. méd. chirurg. de l'Indochine. No. 8.Google Scholar
Nägler, (1909). Archiv f. Protistenk. XV. 1.Google Scholar
Walker, (1911). Philipp. Journ. of Science, sect. B, VI. 259.Google Scholar
Wenyon, (1912). Journ. London School of Troy. Med. II. 27.Google Scholar
Wenyon, (1913). Brit. Med. Journ. p. 1287.Google Scholar
Swellengrebel, (1914). Geneesk. tijdschr. v. Ned. Indië, LIV. No. 4.Google Scholar