Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:59:18.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Elimination of bacteria from dogs with antibiotics*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Norman R. Hayes ,
D. Van Der Waaij  and
Bennett J. Cohen
Norman R. Hayes
Affiliation:
Unit for Laboratory Animal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
D. Van Der Waaij
Affiliation:
Unit for Laboratory Animal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Bennett J. Cohen
Affiliation:
Unit for Laboratory Animal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
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.

The effect of oral administration of neomycin cephalothin or kanamycin cephalothin on the aerobic intestinal bacterial flora, was studied in dogs maintained under isolation conditions in a conventional animal room. The dogs were successfully freed of aerobic bacteria with both combinations within two to seven days after the start of antibiotic treatment, and were maintained bacteria free for up to 21 days. Decontamination was attained more rapidly in dogs that were bathed in hexachlorophene surgical soap before and during the first and third days of antibiotic treatment. There was no evidence of toxicity from either of the antibiotic combinations. These results indicate that, as with mice and monkeys, decontamination of dogs with oral antibiotics is feasible. The technique is of potential value in preventing endogenous bacterial infections in canine experimental studies involving use of immunosuppressive agents.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 73 , Issue 2 , October 1974 , pp. 205 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

References

REFERENCES

Abaza, H. J., Nolan, B., Watt, J. G. & Woodruff, M. F. A. (1966). Effect of antilymphocytic serum on the survival of renal homotransplants in dogs. Transplantation 4, 618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, R. D. & Tuffrey, M. (1968). A ‘germfree’human isolator. Lancet i, 622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohn, I. (1958). Kanamycin for bowel sterilization. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 76, 212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dietrich, M., Fliedner, T. M. & Krieger, D. A. (1973). Germfree technology in clinical medicine: production and maintenance of gnotobiotic states in man. Germfree Research, p. 21. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goss, W. A. & Cimijotti, E. B. (1968). Evaluation of an automatic diluting device for microbiological applications. Applied Microbiology 16, 1414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heit, W., Wilson, R., Fliedner, T. M. & Kohne, E. (1973). Mortality of secondary disease in antibiotic treated mouse radiation chimeras. Germfree Research, p. 477. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitan, A. A. & Perry, S. (1968). The use of an isolator system in cancer chemotherapy. American Journal of Medicine 44, 234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levitan, A. A., Schulte, F. L., Strong, C. D. & Perry, S. (1967). Bacteriological surveillance of the patient isolator system. Archives of Environmental Health 14, 837.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loomis, T. A. (1968). Essentials of Toxicology. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger.Google Scholar
McGarrity, G. M., Corriel, L. L., Schaedler, R. W., Mandle, R. J. & Greene, A. E. (1969). Medical applications of dust-free rooms. III. Use in an animal care laboratory. Applied Microbiology 18, 142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remington, J. S. (1972). The compromised host. Hospital Practice 7, 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rifkind, D., Marchioro, T. L., Waddell, W. R. & Starzl, T. E. (1964). Infectious diseases associated with renal homotransplantation – incidence, types and predisposing factors. Journal of the American Medical Association 189, 397.Google Scholar
van der Waaij, D. & Andreas, A. H. (1969). The necessity and the possibilities to control the microflora of human beings and animals. TNO-News 24, 635.Google Scholar
van der Waaij, D., de Vries, J. M. & Lekkerkerk, J. E. C. (1970). Eliminating bacteria from monkeys with antibiotics. In Infections and Immunosuppression in Subhuman Primates(ed. Balner, H. and Beveridge, W.), pp. 21–3. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
van der Waaij, D. & Sturm, C. A. (1968). Antibiotic decontamination of the digestive tract in mice – technical procedures. Laboratory Animal Care 18, 1.Google Scholar
van der Waaij, D. & Sturm, C. A. (1971). The production of ‘bacteria-free’mice. Relationship between fecal flora and bacterial population of the skin. Journal of Microbiology and Serology 37, 139.Google ScholarPubMed
Venuto, R. C., Stein, J. H. & Ferris, T. F. (1972). Failure to demonstrate nephrotoxicity of cephalothin in rabbits with reduced renal function. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 139, 1065.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vossen, J. M., Dooren, L. J. & van der Waaij, D. (1973). Clinical experience with the control of the microflora. Germfree Research, p. 97. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vossen, J. M. & van der Waaij, D. (1972). Reverse isolation in bone marrow transplantation: ultra-clean room compared with laminar flow technique. I. Isolation systems. European Journal of Clinical and Biological Research 17, 457.Google ScholarPubMed