Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:26:40.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparative study of the reaction in vivo and in vitro of rabbit tissues to infection with bovine tubercle bacilli: Part I. Observations on rabbit spleen infected in vitro

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Honor B. Fell  and
E. M. Brieger
Honor B. Fell
Affiliation:
From Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge and Papworth Hospital, East Anglian Regional Hospital Board
E. M. Brieger
Affiliation:
From Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge and Papworth Hospital, East Anglian Regional Hospital Board
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 effect of virulent bovine tubercle bacilli on rabbit tissue in vitro was studied.

2. When normal spleen cultures were infected in vitro the cells actively phago- cyted the bacilli. At first the phagocytes tolerated the organisms, and in the course of their wanderings spread the infection throughout the tissue. Some infected cells even underwent mitotic division.

3. Eventually the infected cells broke down, and the freed bacilli continued to grow in the tissue. Fourteen days after infection, outgrowth had usually ceased and the explants were almost completely replaced by bacilli.

4. Actively growing spleen cultures were unable to suppress even a slight infection with virulent bovine bacilli.

5. No tubercles were formed in the cultures.

6. There were no indications ofan exotoxic action of the bacilli on the cells in tissue culture, an densely infiltrated explants were often surrounded by a large zone ofoutgrowth.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 49 , Issue 2-3 , June 1951 , pp. 181 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1951

References

REFERENCES

Brieger, E. M. (1949). Tubercle, 30 227, 242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canat, E. H. & Opie, E. L. (1943). Amer. J. Path. 19, 385.Google Scholar
Costil, L. & Bloch, F. (1938). C.R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 128, 40, 849.Google Scholar
Fell, H. B. & Brieger, E. M. (1947). J. Hyg., Camb. 45, 359.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. (1927). Arch. exp. Zellforsch. 3, 381.Google Scholar
Haagen, E. (1928). Arch. exp. Zellforsch. 5, 151.Google Scholar
Lurie, M. B. (1942). J. exp. Med. 75, 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maximow, A. (1924). J. infect. Dis. 34, 549.Google Scholar
Maximow, A. (1928). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 42, 225.Google Scholar
Maximow, A. & Bloom, W. (1941). Textbook of Histology. Philadephia: W. B. Sunders Company.Google Scholar
Moore, M. (1942). Amer. J. Path. 18, 827.Google Scholar
Rich, A. R. (1946). The Pathogenesis of Phthisis. Springfield, Illinois: C. L. Thomas.Google Scholar
Smith, D. T., Willis, H. S. & Lewis, M. R. (1922). Amer. Rev. Tuberc. 6, 21.Google Scholar
Timofejewsky, A. D. & Benevolenskaja, S. W. (1928). Virchows Arch. 264, 605.Google Scholar
Woodruff, C. H., Kelly, R. G. & Leaming, M. A. (1942). Amer. Rev. Tuberc. 46, 319.Google Scholar