Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T10:35:27.929Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth agglutination and growth inhibition tests in the diagnosis of brucellosis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

K. R. Mittal  and
I. R. Tizard
K. R. Mittal
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Immunology Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
I. R. Tizard
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Immunology Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
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.

Growth agglutination and growth inhibition tests were established for the diagnosis of Brucella abortus infection. The former involves the agglutination of living organisms while the latter is a bactericidal test. Using mouse, guinea-pig, rabbit and bovine serum it was shown that the growth agglutination test is approximately ten times, and the growth inhibition test one hundred times, more sensitive than the conventional tube agglutination test. It is suggested that these techniques may be of assistance in diagnosing bovine brucellosis in situations in which the tube agglutination test results are suspected of being falsely negative.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 83 , Issue 2 , October 1979 , pp. 295 - 304
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

References

Alton, G. G., Jones, L. M. & Pietz, D. E. (1975). Laboratory techniques in Brucellosis. World Health Organization, Geneva.Google ScholarPubMed
Brinley-Morgan, W. J. (1967). The serological diagnosis of bovine brucellosis. Veterinary Record 80, 612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleson, I. F., Wood, E. E., Cressman, A. R. & Bennett, G. R. (1945). The bactericidal action of bovine blood for brucella and its possible significance. Journal of Bacteriology 50, 261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irwin, M. R., Beach, B. A. & Bell, F. N. (1936). Studies on the bactericidal action of bovine whole blood and serum towards Brucella abortus and Brucella suis. Journal of Infectious Diseases 58, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, M. R. & Ferguson, L. C. (1938). Increase of bactericidins in the serum of cattle following recovery from infections with Br. abortus. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 38, 451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, K. & Herzberg, M. (1968). Antibody response and protection induced by immunization with smooth and rough strains in experimental Salmonellosis. Journal of Bacteriology 95, 406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muschel, L. H. & Jackson, J. E. (1963). Activity of the antibody-complement system and lysozyme against rough gram-negative organisms. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 113, 881.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muschel, L. H. & Treffers, H. P. (1956). Quantitative studies on the bactericidal actions of serum and complement. I. A rapid photometric growth assay for bactericidal activity. Journal of Immunology 76, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tizard, I. R. (1977). An Introduction to Immunology for Veterinarians. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company.Google Scholar