Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:49:50.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influenze virus flocculation reaction as a method of antigenic typing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

G. Belyavin
G. Belyavin
Affiliation:
Department of Bacteriology, University College Hospital Medical School
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.

The influenza virus serum flocculation previously reported (Belyavin, 1955) opened up a number of lines of investigation. One of obvious importance was extension of the reaction to other viruses belonging to both related and unrelated groups. Indeed, other workers in this laboratory have already achieved the flocculation of poliomyelitis viruses by specific antisera (Smith, Sheffield, Lee & Churcher, 1956) and flocculation of both mumps and Newcastle disease viruses is now reported in this communication. The ease with which the viruses of the mumps-influenza group can be flocculated by homologous rabbit antisera suggested that the technique may be applicable as a method of antigenic analysis. If so, it would have the advantage of being much simpler than the standard haemagglutination inhibition and complement-fixation tests. The exploration of this possibility forms the basis of this paper. A large-scale antigenic survey involving numerous virus strains has not been attempted, greater emphasis being placed on the examination of techniques and their applicability to the end in view. The investigation has also revealed new phenomena peculiar to the direct virus flocculation reaction.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , June 1957 , pp. 281 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

References

REFERENCES

Bawden, F. C. & Pirie, N. W. (1945). Brit. J. exp. Path. 26, 294.Google Scholar
Belyavin, G. (1955). Lancet, 1, 698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belyavin, G. (1956). Brit. J. exp. Path. 37, 75.Google Scholar
Belyavin, G., Westwood, J. C. N., Please, N. W. & Smith, W. (1951). J. gen. Microbiol. 5, 546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu, C. M., Dawson, I. M. & Elford, W. J. (1949). Lancet, 1, 602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirst, G. (1952). J. exp. Med. 96, 589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaacs, A. & Andrewes, C. H. (1951). Brit. med. J. 2, 921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledingham, J. C. G. (1931). Lancet, 2, 525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampaio, A. A. de C. (1952). Bull. World Hlth Org. 6, 473.Google Scholar
Smith, W., Belyavin, G. & Sheffield, F. W. (1955). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 143, 504.Google Scholar
Smith, W. & Cohen, A. (1956). Brit. J. exp. Path. 37, 612.Google Scholar
Smith, W., Westwood, J. C. N. & Belyavin, G. (1951). Lancet, 2, 1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W., Sheffield, F. W., Lee, L. H. & Churcher, G. (1956). Lancet, 1, 710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar