Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:53:28.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The bacteriological classification of the principal cultures used in rat and mouse control in Great Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

P. H. Leslie
P. H. Leslie
Affiliation:
Bureau of Animal Population, Oxford University
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. The six ‘viruses’, Liverpool, Danysz, London, Ready Rat Relief, Institut Pasteur and Ratin, which are the principal bacterial cultures at present employed for anti-rodent control in Great Britain, have been examined. 2. By means of reciprocal absorption tests all these six strains were found to be serologically identical with S. enteritidis Gaertner, antigenic structure, IX:gom:—. 3. From the results of the fermentation tests, which may be used to subdivide this serological type, Liverpool, Danysz, Ready Rat Relief and Ratin were assigned to the var. danysz subgroup; while the London and Institut Pasteur strains could not be distinguished from the classic S. enteritidis type. 4. Both of these subgroups are pathogenic for man, and evidence is cited which shows quite clearly that human cases of gastro-enteritis have been caused by the use of virus preparations. There are, also, reasonable grounds for believing that these bacterial types may be pathogenic for a number of domestic animals, including some poultry.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 42 , Issue 5 , October 1942 , pp. 552 - 562
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1942

References

REFERENCES

Bahr, L. (1929). J. State Med. 37, 468.Google Scholar
Bainbridge, F. A. (1909). J. Path. Bact. 13, 443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitter, L., Weigmann, F. & Habs, H. (1926). Münch, med. Wschr. 73, 940.Google Scholar
Boecker, E. & Kauffmann, F. (1930). Disch. med. Wschr. 56, 1339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danysz, J. (1900). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 14, 193.Google Scholar
Gordan, R. P. (1940). Communication to the Royal Society of Medicine. Lancet, 238, 409.Google Scholar
Hohn, J. & Herrmann, W. (1935). Zbl. Bakt. Orig. 133, 183.Google Scholar
Jones, E. R. & Wright, H. D. (1936). Lancet, 230, 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kathe, (1935). Münch, med. Wschr. 82 (i), 710.Google Scholar
Kauffmann, F. (1935). Z. Hyg. InfektKr. 117, 431.Google Scholar
Kristensen, M. & BojlÉn, K. (1931). Hospitalstidende, 74, 489.Google Scholar
Ministry of Health (1929). Rep. Med. Offr Minist. Hlth, Lond., for the year 1928.Google Scholar
Ministry of Health (1933). Rep. Med. Offr Minist. Hlth, Lond., for the year 1932.Google Scholar
Peice-Jones, C. (1927). J. Path. Bact. 30, 45.Google Scholar
Salmonella Subcommittee (Nomenclature Co. Int. Soc. Microbiol.) (1934). J. Hyg., Camb., 34, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, W. G. & White, P. B. (1925). Spec. Rep. Ser. Med. Res. Coun., Lond., no. 91.Google Scholar
Scott, W. M. (1933). Bull. Off. Int. Hyg. Publ. 25, 1975.Google Scholar
Smith, J. & Scott, W. M. (1930). J. Hyg., Camb., 30, 32.Google Scholar
Solomin, N. (1935). Z. Micr. Epid. Immun. 15, 571. (Russian with a summary in German.)Google Scholar
Spray, R. S. (1926). J. Amer. Med. Ass. 86, 109.Google Scholar
Staff, E. S. & Grover, M. L. (1936). Food Res., Champaign, Ill., 1, 465.Google Scholar
Stern, W. (1916). Zbl. Bakt. Orig. 78, 481.Google Scholar
Steöman, R. & Örn, G. (1932). Zbl. Bakt. Orig. 126, 340.Google Scholar
Welch, H., Ostrolenk, M. & Bartram, M. T. (1941). Amer. J. Publ. Hlth, 31, 332.Google Scholar
Willführ, & Wendtlandt, (1921). Z. Hyg. InfektKr. 94, 192.Google Scholar
Wreschner, H. (1921). Z. Hyg. InfektKr. 93, 35.Google Scholar