Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T04:41:31.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antirabic immunity in guinea-pigs induced by high egg passage Flury virus. The influence of the route of administration on the resistance to cerebral and extraneural challenge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

C. Huygelen
C. Huygelen
Affiliation:
Veterinary Research Laboratory, Astrida, Ruanda-Urundi, Belgian Congo
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.

Immunization experiments in guinea-pigs with high egg passage Flury virus gave the following results:

1. Intracerebral inoculation of the vaccine protects against subsequent intracerebral or peripheral challenge with fixed virus.

2. Intramuscular administration results in the development of a good immunity status to peripheral challenge.

3. Intramuscular or intravenous inoculation of the vaccine fails to protect against intracerebral challenge.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , June 1960 , pp. 187 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

References

REFERENCES

Biglieri, R. & Villegas, C. (1926). C.R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 95, 1176.Google Scholar
Bindrich, H. (1956). Arch. exp. vet. Med. 10, 226.Google Scholar
Castagnoli, B. & Orfei, Z. (1955). R.C. Ist. super. San. 18, 419.Google Scholar
Cruveilhier, L., Nicolau, S. & Kopciowska, L. (1935). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, suppl. 55, 200.Google Scholar
Habel, K. (1940). Publ. Hlth Rep., Wash., 55, 1473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habel, K. (1941). Publ. Hlth Rep., Wash., 56, 692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huygelen, C. & Mortelmans, J. (1959). Amer. J. vet Res. 20, 145.Google Scholar
Huygelen, C. (1959). Ann. Soc. belge Méd. trop. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Isabolinski, M. P. & Zeitlin, A. J. (1929). Z. ImmunForsch. 62, 233.Google Scholar
Kasahara, M. & Sha-Shi-Nan., (1940). Klin. Wschr. 19, 866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koprowski, H. & Black, J. (1950). J. Immunol. 64, 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koprowski, H. & Black, J. (1954 a). J. Immunol. 72, 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koprowski, H. & Black, J. (1954 b). J. Immunol. 72, 503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koprowski, H., Black, J. & Nelsen, D. J. (1954). J. Immunol. 72, 94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubes, V. & Gallia, F. (1944). Canad. J. comp. Med. 8, 48.Google Scholar
Löffler, E. & Schweinburg, F. (1930). Virchows Arch. 279, 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marie, A. C. & Mutermilch, S. (1927). C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 184, 911.Google Scholar
Marie, A. C. & Mutermilch, S. (1928). C.R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 98, 1314.Google Scholar
Matewa, V. (1959). Zbl. Bakt. I Orig., 175, 59.Google Scholar
Nicolau, S., Viala, J. & Kopciowska, L. (1930). C.R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 104, 1134.Google Scholar
Nicolau, S. & Kopciowska, L. (1932). C.R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 110, 348.Google Scholar
Phisalix, X. (1926). C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 182, 288.Google Scholar
Quast, G. (1925). Zbl. Bakt. I Orig., 97, 53.Google Scholar
Reed, L. J. & Muench, H. (1938). Amer. J. Hyg. 27, 493.Google Scholar
Remlinger, P. & Bailly, J. (1927). C.R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 93, 683.Google Scholar
Remlinger, P. & Bailly, J. (1928). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 42, 736.Google Scholar
Speransky, A. (1927). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 41, 166.Google Scholar
Tzekhnovitzer, M. & Goldenberg, I. (1930). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 44, 330.Google Scholar
Webster, L. T. (1939). J. exp. Med. 70, 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar