Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T11:46:22.967Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Louping-Ill in Monkeys. Infection by the Nose

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

I. A. Galloway  and
J. R. Perdrau
I. A. Galloway
Affiliation:
National Institute for Medical Research, Hampstead, London, N.W. 3
J. R. Perdrau
Affiliation:
National Institute for Medical Research, Hampstead, London, N.W. 3
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.

Louping-Ill as is now known from the work carried out at the Moredun Institute, Edinburgh, during the last 10 years can be transmitted by the tick Ixodes ricinus. Under natural conditions the disease is probably most commonly spread by this means. The possibility that infection might result, at any rate under experimental conditions, by other means than the intervention of an arthropod vector has been the starting point of the following investigation. The nasopharynx as a possible portal of entry was considered first because it is so often incriminated in many of the virus diseases of man. Furthermore, Webster and Fite (1933) and Elford and Galloway (1933) have shown that mice can be infected with the virus of louping-ill by the nasal instillation of potent filtrates or suspensions of infective brain. Fresh importance has been added to this alternative route of entry of the virus by the occurrence of a number of cases of laboratory infections amongst those who have studied the experimental disease. Rivers and Schwentker (1934), who have recorded these cases, give reasons for incriminating the nose as the portal of entry.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , August 1935 , pp. 339 - 346
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1935

References

REFERENCES

Elford, W. J. and Galloway, I. A. (1933). J. Path. Bact. 37, 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Findlay, G. M. (1932). Brit. J. Exp. Path. 13, 230.Google Scholar
Galloway, I. A. (1934). Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. 27, 711.Google Scholar
Gordon, W. S., Brownlee, A., Wilson, D. R. and MacLeod, J. (1932). J. Comp. Path. 45, 106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, W. S. (1934). Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. 27, 701.Google Scholar
Greig, J. R., Brownlee, A., Wilson, D. R. and Gordon, W. S. (1931). Vet. Bee. 11, 325.Google Scholar
Hurst, E. W. (1930). J. Path. Bact. 33, 1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurst, E. W. (1931). J. Comp. Path. 44, 231.Google Scholar
Parker, H. L. and Kernohan, J. W. (1933). Brain, 56, 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivers, T. M. and Schwentker, F. F. (1934). J. Exp. Med. 59, 669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, E. W. and Gebhardt, L. B. (1933). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. 30, 1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwentker, F. F., Rivers, T. M. and Finkelstein, M. H. (1933). J. Exp. Med. 57, 955.Google Scholar
Webster, L. T. and Fite, G. L. (1933). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. 30, 656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar