Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:59:28.355Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The epizootic behaviour of mousepox (infectious ectromelia of mice): The course of events in long-continued epidemics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Frank Fenner
Frank Fenner
Affiliation:
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
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. Two long-continued epidemics of mousepox were set up with different strains of the virus and maintained for 190 and 290 days respectively. Considerable differences were observed between the behaviour of the two strains of virus, the Moscow strain being much more virulent and more highly infective than the Hampstead strain.

2. The two strains of virus maintained their original characters through the experiments.

3. Life tables were constructed for both epidemics, specific and non-specific deaths being dealt with separately. They show that high and durable immunity follows recovery from infection.

4. Two mice which had recovered from infection were found to harbour small quantities of the virus in the lungs, and in one case in the spleen also, suggesting that chronic latent carriers of the virus may occur.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , December 1948 , pp. 383 - 393
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1948

References

REFERENCES

Andrewes, C. H. (1939). Quoted by Kikuth & Gonnert (1940).Google Scholar
Andrewes, C. H. & Elford, W. J. (1947). Brit. J. exp. Path. 28, 278.Google Scholar
Burnet, F. M. & Boake, W. C. (1946). J. Immunol. 53, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairbrother, R. W. & Hoyle, L. (1937). J. Path. Bad. 44, 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenner, F. (1947a). Aust. J. exp. Biol. med. Sci. 25, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenner, F. (1947b). Aust. J. exp. Biol. med. Sci. 25, 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenner, F. (1948a). Brit. J. exp. Path. 29, 69.Google Scholar
Fenner, F. (1948b). J. Path. Bact. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Fenner, F. (1948c). Aust. J. exp. Biol. med. Sci. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Fenner, F. (1948d). Aust. J. exp. Biol. med. Sci. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Fenner, F. & Fenner, E.M.B. (1948). Aust. J. exp. Biol.med. Sci. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Gönnert, R. (1942). Zbl. Bakt. (1. Abt. Orig.), 148, 294.Google Scholar
Greenwood, M., Hill, A. B., Topley, W. W. C. & Wilson, J. (1936). Spec. Rep. Ser. med. Res. Coun., Lond., no. 209.Google Scholar
Hornus, G. & Thibault, P. (1939). C.R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 130, 640.Google Scholar
Kermack, W. O. & McKendrick, A. G. (1937). J. Hyg., Camb., 37, 172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kikuth, G. & Gönnert, R. (1940). Arch. Virusforach. 1, 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoen, R. (1938). C.R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 128, 695.Google Scholar
Topley, W. W. C. (1923). J. Hyg., Camb., 21, 226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar