Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:23:01.695Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Haemophilic Bacteria of the Upper Respiratory Tract, the Appearance of Virulent forms in Relation to Upper Respiratory Infections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

L. Hoyle
L. Hoyle
Affiliation:
From the Department of Pathology and Bacteriology, University of Leeds
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.

In previous studies of the bacterial flora of the upper respiratory tract and its variations during attacks of acute coryza (Hoyle, 1932), it was found that there was in many cases a striking relationship between the appearance of certain organisms with definite pathogenic properties towards the lower animals, in the upper respiratory tract, and the occurrence of acute infections. This relationship was especially marked in the case of the influenza bacillus, and it was suggested that this organism played a prominent part in the aetiology of upper respiratory infections. The significance of the influenza bacillus in acute coryza has been noted by various workers (Noble, Fisher and Brainard, 1928; Burky and Smillie, 1929; Webster and Clow, 1932; Kneeland and Dawes, 1932), but on the other hand various observers have found the incidence of influenza bacilli in the respiratory tract to be the same in normal health and in acute coryza, and Fleming (1929) and Fleming and Maclean (1930) have devised a technique by means of which they claim to have isolated influenza bacilli in 100 per cent, of normal throats. One possible explanation of these conflicting results may be found in the absence of any very exact criterion of what constitutes a typical influenza bacillus.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , June 1934 , pp. 195 - 202
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1934

References

REFERENCES

Blake, F. G. and Cecil, R. L. (1920). J. Exp. Med. 32, 691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burky, E. L. and Smillie, W. G. (1929). J. Exp. Med. 50, 643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dochez, A. R., Mills, K. C. and Kneeland, Y. (1932). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. and Med. 30, 314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dochez, A. R., Mills, K. C. and Kneeland, Y. (1933). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. and Med. 30, 1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, A. (1929). Brit. J. Exp. Path. 10, 226.Google Scholar
Fleming, A. and Maclean, I. H. (1930). Brit. J. Exp. Path. 11, 127.Google Scholar
Hoyle, L. (1932). J. Path. and Bact. 35, 817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, G. (1901). Arch. Med. Exp. 13, 425.Google Scholar
Kamen, L. (1901). Zbl. Bakt. Abt. 1, 29, 339.Google Scholar
Kneeland, Y. and Dawes, C. F. (1932). J. Exp. Med. 55, 735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noble, W. C., Fisher, E. A. and Brainard, D. H. (1928). J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 90, 1666.Google Scholar
Pittman, M. (1931). J. Exp. Med. 53, 471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, L. T. and Clow, A. D. (1932). J. Exp. Med. 55, 445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, J. E. (1920). Zbl. Bakt. Abt. 1, Orig. 84, 241.Google Scholar