Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:40:04.146Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The antibody response in man following infection with viruses of the pox group I. An evaluation of the pock counting method for measuring neutralizing antibody

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

K. McCarthly ,
A.W. Downie  and
P. Armitage
K. McCarthly
Affiliation:
Department of Bacteriology, University of Liverpool
A.W. Downie
Affiliation:
Department of Bacteriology, University of Liverpool
P. Armitage
Affiliation:
Statistical Research Unit of the Medical Research Council, 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.

Various techniques have been used in studying antibody responses following infection with pox viruses. Of the in vitro tests the complement fixation and haemagglutination inhibition techniques have proved most convenient, but the antibodies concerned are apparently diiferent from neutralizing antibody (Chu, 1948). Estimation of this antibody to certain members of the group, such as ectromelia and vaccinia viruses, may be made in susceptible animals. Variola virus does not, however, produce lesions in the common laboratory animals with sufficient regularity to make such neutralization tests practicable. But it does constantly give rise to recognizable focal lesions on the chorio-allantois of developing chick embryos. This tissue, susceptible to most members of the pox group, has therefore been used in previous studies (McCarthy & Downie, 1948; Downie & McCarthy, 1950), employing the technique developed by Burnet and his colleagues for vaccinia and other viruses (Burnet, 1936; Keogh, 1936; Burnet, Keogh & Lush, 1937; Burnet & Lush, 1939).

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , March 1958 , pp. 84 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1958

References

REFERENCES

Armitage, P. (1957). J. Hyg., Camb., 55, 564.Google Scholar
Bartlett, M. S. & Kendall, D. G. (1946). J. B. statist. Soc. Suppl. 8, 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulter, E. A. (1957). J. Hyg., Camb., 55, 502.Google Scholar
Burnet, F. M. (1936). Spec. Rep. Ser. med. Res. Ooun., Lond., no. 220. H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Burnet, F. M. & Faris, D. D. (1942). J. Bact. 44, 241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnet, F.M., Keogh, E.V. & Lush, D. (1937). Aust.j.exp.Biol.Med.Sci. 15, 296.Google Scholar
Burnet, F. M. & Lush, D. (1939). J. Path. Bact. 48, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu, C. M. (1948). J. Hyg., Camb., 46, 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downie, A. W. (1951). Lancet, i, 419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downie, A. W. & Mccarthy, K. (1950). Brit. J. exp. Path. 31 789.Google Scholar
Downie, A. W. & Mccarthy, K. (1954). Dynamics of Virus and Rickettsial Infections, p. 194. New York: The Blakiston Co. Inc.Google Scholar
Dumbell, K. R., Downie, A. W. & Valentine, R. C. (1957). Virology, 4, 467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenner, F. & Mcintyre, G. A. (1956). J. Hyg., Camb., 54, 246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahon, N., Louie, R. & Ratner, M. (1957). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 94, 697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keogh, E. V. (1936). J. Path. Bact. 43, 441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mccarthy, K. & Downie, A. W. (1948). Brit. J. exp. Path. 29, 501.Google Scholar
Mccarthy, K. & Downie, A. W. (1953). Lancet i 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mccarthy, K. & Germer, W. D. (1952). Brit. J. exp. Path. 33, 529.Google Scholar
Overman, J. R. & Tamm, I. (1956). J. Immunol. 76, 228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westwood, J. C. N., Phipps, P. H. & Boulter, E. A. (1957). J. Hyg., Camb., 55, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar