Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T15:03:30.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bacteriophage Typing of Shigella Sonnei and its Limitations in Epidemiological Investigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

G. H. Tee
G. H. Tee
Affiliation:
The Public Health Laboratory, Tennis Court Road, Cambridge
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

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.

An investigation into the classification of strains of Shigella sonneiby the method of phage-typing (using unadapted bacteriophages) is described.

829 strains, obtained during 3 years from twelve regions in England (including Monmouthshire) were examined by a standard technique. There were fifty-two outbreaks (involving 587 strains) from which two or more strains were isolated.

Results confirmed the finding by Hammarström in Sweden that such classification was possible, strains falling into twenty phage-types of which thirteen were found more than once. All strains were typable, 74% belonging to the same type. In forty-seven outbreaks the phage-type was uniform, the commonest type occurring in thirty-eight of these. In five outbreaks the phage-type was not uniform.

It is concluded that this method of phage-typing, because of evidence of type instability and because the majority of strains belong to the same phage-type, has little practical value as a routine procedure in the control of Sonne dysentery in this country.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , March 1955 , pp. 54 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1955

References

Barry, G. T. & Goebel, W. F. (1951). J. exp. Med. 94, 399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bojlén, K. (1934). Thesis: Dysentery in Denmark. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. S. K. (1950). J. Path. Bact. 62, 501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duval, C. W. (1904). J. Amer. med. Ass. 43, 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisk, R. T. (1942). J. infect. Dis. 71, 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goebel, W. F. & Jesaitis, M. A. (1952).J. exp. Med. 96, 425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammabström, E. (1947). Lancet, i, 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammarström, E. (1949). Acta med. scand. 133 (Suppl. No. 223).Google Scholar
Jesaitis, M. A. & Goebel, W. F. (1952). J. exp. Med. 96, 409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludford, C. G. (1953). Aust. J. exp. Biol. med. Sci. 31,545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr-Hartinq, A. (1952). J. gen. Microbiol. 7,382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medical Research Council (1920). Spec. Rep. Ser. med. Res. Coun., Lond., no. 51, p. 54.Google Scholar
Raška, K., Mališová, V. & Mazáček, M. (1950). Čas. Lék. čs, 89, 835.Google Scholar
Scholtens, R. T. (1950). Leeuwenhoek ned. Tijdschr. 16, 256.Google Scholar
Sonne, C. (1915). Zbl. Bakt.(Abt. 1),75, 408.Google Scholar
Tee, G. H. (1952). Mom. Bull. Minist. Hlth Lab. Serv. 11, 68.Google Scholar
Wheeler, K. & Mickle, F. L. (1945).J. Immunol. 51, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams Smith, H. (1948 a). J. Hyg., Camb., 46, 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams Smith, H. (1948 b). J. Hyg., Camb., 46, 82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams Smith, H. (1951). J. gen. Microbiol. 5, 472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar