Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:39:32.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diagnostic uses of cholera bacteriophages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

S. Mukerjee
S. Mukerjee
Affiliation:
Division of Microbiology, Indian Institute for Biochemistry and Experimental Medicine, Calcutta, India
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. Apart from strain identification of V. cholerae for epidemiological studies by phage-typing and determination of their S-R dissociation cholera bacteriophages may be utilized for other valuable diagnostic aids in the laboratory.

2. The universal susceptibility of V. cholerae strains to group IV cholera bacteriophage and universal lyso-resistance of El Tor vibrios to it provide a specific method for differentiating between the two species of vibrios. This test is simple and convenient for routine diagnostie use and should be of special value for identifying non-haemolytic El Tor vibrios, which are otherwise liable to be missed.

3. The marked insensitivity of the NAG vibrios to cholera bacteriophages, particularly their total insusceptibility to the phage of group II, enables these strains to be readily distinguishable from V. cholerae.

4. Cholera bacteriophages which are stable on maintenance and storage in the laboratory can conveniently be supplied absorbed on filter disks for the use of the smaller laboratories.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , March 1961 , pp. 109 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1961

References

REFERENCES

Asheshov, I. N., Asheshov, I., Khan, S., Lahiri, M. N. & Chatterjee, S. K. (1933). Indian J. Med. Res. 20, 1127.Google Scholar
Doorenbos, W. (1932). Traitement des porteurs de vibrions cholériques par le bactériophage. (Communication to the Office International d'Hygiene Publique, October session, 1932.)Google Scholar
Gardner, A. D. & Venkatraman, K. V. (1935). J. Hyg., Camb., 35, 262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gipsen, R. (1938). Akademisch Proefschrift Vlg., Amsterdam, Holland.Google Scholar
Gotschlilch, F. (1906). Z. Hyg. Infektkr. 53, 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, F. H. (1939). Akademisch Proefschrift Vlg., Amsterdam, Holland.Google Scholar
Moor, C. E. de(1949). Bull. World Hlth Org. 2, 5.Google Scholar
Mukerjee, S. (1959). Ann. Biochem. 19, 9.Google Scholar
Mukerjee, S., Guha, D. K. & Guha Roy, U. K. (1957). Ann. Biochem. 17, 161.Google Scholar
Mukerjee, S., Guha Roy, U. K., Guha, D. K. & Rudra, B. C. (1959). Ann. Biochem. 19, 115.Google Scholar
Mukerjee, S., Guha Roy, U. K. & Rudra, B. C. (1960). Ann. Biochem. 20, 183.Google Scholar
Pasricha, C. L., de Mobte, A. J. H. & Gupta, S. K. (1936). Indian J. Med. Gaz. 71, 191.Google Scholar
Pollitzer, R. (1959). Cholera, W.H.O. Monograph Series, no. 43, p. 589. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
Read, W. D. B., Pandit, S. R. & Das, P. C. (1942). Indian J. Med. Res. 30, 183.Google Scholar
Tanamal, S. J. W. (1938). Ned. Tijdschr. Genesk. 92, 1370.Google Scholar
Tanamal, S. J. W. (1959). Amer. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 8, 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venkatraman, K. V., Krishnaswami, A. K. & Ramkrishnan, C. S. (1941). Indian J. Med. Res. 29, 419.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y. (1958). Amer. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 7, 312.Google Scholar
White, P. B. (1936). J. Path. Bact. 43, 591.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. S. & Miles, A. A. (1955). Topley and Wilson's Principles of Bacteriology and Immunity, p. 608, 4th ed.London: Edward Arnold Ltd.Google Scholar