Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:03:52.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Atypical strains of tubercle bacilli in human tuberculosis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

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.

Pus from a lumbar abscess in a boy, aged 10 years, produced severe general tuberculosis in a guinea-pig. A culture from this guinea-pig resembled a bovine strain in primary culture on egg and a eugonic human strain in subculture on glycerine egg and glycerinated potato. The virulence of the strain was high for the guinea-pig and irregular for the rabbit. For some rabbits the pathogenic effects of the strain were much more severe than those of typical human bacilli and approached, but did not equal, those of bovine bacilli. The results in other rabbits were similar to those of eugonic human bacilli. Cultures recovered from the rabbits resembled in characters the original strain, which was therefore not a mixture of the human and bovine types of tubercle bacilli. The strain cannot be described as ‘human’ or ‘bovine’ according to the usually accepted distinction between these types in the rabbit, but according to the results in the vole could be classified as belonging to the human type.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1941

References

REFERENCES

Eastwood, A. & Griffith, F. (1914). The incidence and bacteriological characteristics of tuberculous infection in children. Local Govt Bd Report on Public Health and Medical Subjects, New Series, No. 88, pp. 1104.Google Scholar
Griffith, A. Stanley (1914). An enquiry, based on a series of autopsies, into the occurrence and distribution of tuberculous infection in children, and its relation to the human and bovine types of tubercle bacilli respectively. Local Govt Bd Reports on Public Health and Medical Subjects, New Series, No. 88, pp. 105–66.Google Scholar