Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:25:29.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Bacteriolytic Action of Gland Extracts on Tubercle Bacilli

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

A. E. Porter
A. E. Porter
Affiliation:
(From the Bacteriological Department, Edinburgh 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.

The results obtained point to a consistent relationship between lipolytic activity and bacteriolytic power on tubercle bacilli.

The least bactericidal extract was lung extract; the most powerful was pancreas extract.

Liver, thymus and lymphatic glands were strongly bactericidal.

Other organs, suprarenal glands, pig and cat spleen, human and cat kidney, human and ox brain, ox thyroid, cat lung, ox bone marrow and ox pituitary glands were found to be bactericidal to a lesser degree.

The human skin extract examined for bactericidal properties was fatty and cloudy in appearance and exceptionally rich in esterases1.

Even if exceptional in its esterase activity this sample of skin bears out the relationship between lipolysis and bacteriolysis of tubercle bacilli in a striking way, as it was also extremely bactericidal.

No difference was noticed between bovine and human tubercle bacilli in susceptibility to any gland extract examined.

Other acid-fast bacilli, though on the whole less susceptible than tubercle bacilli to the influence of these extracts, were bacteriolysed by them. They were also killed by one lung extract (pig's) which contained an unusually large amount of olein lipase and which had no effect on tubercle bacilli.

I wish to express my thanks to Dr W. Cramer for his kind advice and encouragement, to Dr Cobbett for his kindly criticism, to Professor Shennan and Dr Miller for human material, and to Dr Wang for several strains of tubercle bacilli.

The expenses of this Research were met in part by a grant from the Earl of Moray Trust.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , July 1917 , pp. 55 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1917

References

Arloing, (1899). C. R. Soc. Biol. p. 751.Google Scholar
Bartel, , Neumann, and Leimsner, (1910). Centralbi. f. Bakteriol. Orig. LVI. 126.Google Scholar
Baudran, , quoted from Kolle and Wassermann, V. 430.Google Scholar
Calmette, and Guerin, (1909). C. R. Acad. Sci. LXIX. 716.Google Scholar
Cramer, , Feiss, and Bullock, (1913). Journ. Physiol. XLVI.Google Scholar
Deycke, and Much, (1910). München med. Wochenschr. p. 271.Google Scholar
Fontes, (1909). C. R. Soc. Biol. No. XV.Google Scholar
Fontes, (1909). Centralbl. f. Bakteriol. I. 78.Google Scholar
Griffiths, (1914). Journ. Pathol. and Bacteriol.Google Scholar
Hawthorn, quoted from Fontes.Google Scholar
Kanitz, (1905). Zeitschr. f. physiol. Chem. XLVI. 482.Google Scholar
Kitasato, (1892). Zeitschr. f. Hygiene.Google Scholar
Kling, (1910). Zeitschr. f. Immunitätsf. Orig. VII. 1.Google Scholar
Kresling, , quoted from Kolle and Wassermann, v. 430.Google Scholar
Markl, (1905). Centralbl. f. Bakteriol. XXXVIII. 69.Google Scholar
Neumann, and Wittgenstein, (1909). Beiträge z. Klin. der Tuberkulose.Google Scholar
Pekelharing, (1912). Zeitschr. f. physiol. Chem. LXXXI. 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, (1914). München. med. Wochenschr. II. p. 1775.Google Scholar
Porter, (1916). Biochem. Journ. X. 523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, (1917). Journal of Hygiene.Google Scholar
Schroeder, (1909). Beiträge z. Klin. der Tuberkulose.Google Scholar
Sieber, and Metalnikoff, (1910). Ceniralbl. f. Bakteriol. Abt. 1, LIV. 349.Google Scholar
Spiro, (1910). Ceniralbl. f. Bakteriol. p. 332.Google Scholar
Tessen, and Rabinowitsch, (1910). Ceniralbl. f. Bakteriol. p. 454.Google Scholar
Trudeau, (1910). Journ. Med. Research, No. CXIX. p. 977Google Scholar
Withe, and Zeublin, (1911). Journ. Infect. Dis. VIII. 176.Google Scholar
Wolff, (1909). München. med. Wochenschr. p. 2312.Google Scholar