Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:30:49.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The serological classification of Bacteriaceae

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

A. Felix
A. Felix
Affiliation:
From the Central Enteric Reference Laboratory and Bureau, Public Health Laboratory Service (Medical Research Council), London
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. Four different Bacteriaceae possessing the same Vi antigen showed, after exposure to heat, striking differences in the physico-chemical behaviour of the Vi antigen. The most noticeable differences observed were those in the changes in Vi-agglutinability and O-inagglutinability of the bacteria; lesser differences were noted in the agglutinogenic activity of the Vi antigen, and none in its agglutinin-binding capacity.

2. Treatment with alcohol altered the TVi antigen of one of the species (Bact. coli 5396/38) in a way different from that seen in the other three species.

3. On the other hand, dilute acid or alkali produced the same chemical changes in the TVi antigen of all four Bacteriaceae.

4. The TVi antigen present in the four Bacteriaceae appears to be one and the same substance; it cannot be differentiated by the customary serological methods. Its different physico-chemical state after exposure to heat or alcohol is, therefore, conditioned by other constituents of the bacterial cell, which may, or may not, be antigenic.

5. The simultaneous O- and Vi-inagglutinability resulting from heating at 75° C. is particularly impressive since it does not appear to be specially related to any one of the known antigenic components.

6. These findings invalidate the basis on which the L, A and B antigens of Bact. coli have been differentiated.

7. There is also no valid reason for designating the labile somatic antigens of Salmonella and other Bacteriaceae as K antigens. These antigens have the general characters of the Vi antigen of Salm. typhi, are demonstrated by methods developed in the study of the typhoid Vi antigen, and are not associated with typical capsules.

8. The M (mucoid) antigens of Salmonella and of Bact. coli are in many respects different from the Vi antigens and should be classified separately.

I gratefully acknowledge the valuable technical assistance received from Mr F. J. Flynn throughout the work reported in this and the preceding papers of this series.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , December 1952 , pp. 558 - 579
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1952

References

REFERENCES

Archer, G. T. L. (1942). J. r. army med. Cps, 79, 109.Google Scholar
Borman, E. K., Stuart, C. A. & Wheeler, K. M. (1944). J. Bact. 48, 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, H. & Unat, E. K. (1942). Schweiz. Z. Path. Bact. 5, 1.Google Scholar
Braun, H. & Unat, E. K. (1943). Schweiz, Z. Path. Bact. 6, 142.Google Scholar
Bray, J. (1945). J. Path. Bact. 57, 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce White, P. (1926). Spec. Rep. Ser., med. Res. Coun., Lond., no. 103.Google Scholar
Bruce White, P. (1929). J. Path. Bact. 32, 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce White, P. (1940). J. Path. Bact. 50, 160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enterobacteriaceae Sub-Committee Of The Nomenclature Committee (1952). Proc. 5th Int. Congr. Microbiol. (1950) (in the press). Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
Ewing, W. H. (1950). J. Lab. clin. Med. 36, 471.Google Scholar
Ewing, W. H., Edwards, P. R. & Hucks, M. C. (1951). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 78, 100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, A. (1951). J. Hyg., Camb., 49, 268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, A. (1952 a). J. Hyg., Camb., 50, 515.Google Scholar
Felix, A. (1952 b). J. Hyg., Camb., 50, 540.Google Scholar
Felix, A. (1952 c). J. Hyg., Camb., 50, 550.Google Scholar
Felix, A., Bhatnagar, S. S. & Pitt, R. M. (1934). Brit. J. exp. Path. 15, 346.Google Scholar
Felix, A. & Pitt, R. M. (1934 a). J. Path. Bact. 38, 409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, A. & Pitt, R. M. (1934 b). Lancet, 1, 186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, A. & Pitt, R. M. (1936). Brit. J. exp. Path. 17, 81.Google Scholar
Felix, A. & Pitt, R. M. (1951). J. Hyg., Camb., 49, 92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, A. E. & Buckland, F. E. (1945). J. r. army med. Cps, 84, 163.Google Scholar
Gard, S. & Erikson, E. J. (1939). Z. Hyg. InfektKr. 122, 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, C. & Sangster, G. (1948). J. Hyg., Camb., 46, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, C., Sangster, G. & Smith, J. (1949). Arch. Dis. Childh. 24, 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, W. & Freeman, J. F. (1945). Indian J. med. Res. 33, 177.Google Scholar
Henriksen, S. D. (1949 a). J. Immunol. 62, 271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henriksen, S. D. (1949 b). Acta path. microbiol. scand. 26, 893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henriksen, S. D. (1949 c). Acta path. microbiol. scand. 26, 903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henriksen, S. D. (1949 d). Acta path. microbiol. scand. 26, 424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henriksen, S. D. (1949 e). Acta path. microbiol. scand. 26, 436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henriksen, S. D. (1950). Acta path. microbiol. scand. 27, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Josephsen, J. O. & Henriksen, S. D. (1951). Acta path. microbiol. scand. 28, 343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jude, A. & Nicolle, P. (1952 a). C.R. acad. Sci., Paris, 234, 1718.Google Scholar
Jude, A. & Nicolle, P. (1952 b). C.R. acad. Sci., Paris, 234, 2028.Google Scholar
Kauffmann, F. (1935). Z. Hyg. InfektKr. 116, 617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffmann, F. (1936 a). Z. Hyg. InfektKr. 117, 778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffmann, F. (1936 b). Z. Hyg. InfektKr. 118, 318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffmann, F. (1941 a). Acta path. microbiol. scand. 18, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffmann, F. (1941 b). Die Bakteriologie der Salmonella-Gruppe. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Kauffmann, F. (1943). Acta path. microbiol. scand. 20, 21.Google Scholar
Kauffmann, F. (1944 a). Acta path. microbiol. scand. 21, 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffmann, F. (1944 b). Acta path. microbiol. scand. 21, 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffmann, F. (1947 a). J. Immunol. 57, 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffmann, F. (1947 b). Acta path. microbiol. scand. 24, 582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffmann., F. (1949 a). Acta path. microbiol. scand. 26, 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffmann, F. (1949 b). Acta path. microbiol. scand. 26, 879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffmann, F. (1951). Enterobacteriaceae. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Kauffmann, F. & Møller, E. (1940). J. Hyg., Camb., 40, 246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffmann, F. & Vahlne, G. (1945). Acta path. microbiol. scand. 22, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knipschildt, H. E. (1945). Acta path. microbiol. scand. 22, 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knipschildt, H. E. (1946). Acta path. microbiol. scand. 23, 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landy, M. (1952 a). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 80, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landy, M. (1952 b). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Landy, M. & Webster, M. E. (1952). J. Immunol. 69, 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longfellow, D. & Luippold, G. F. (1943). Amer. J. Hyg. 37, 206.Google Scholar
Luippold, G. F. (1944). Science, 99, 497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luippold, G. F. (1946). Amer. J. publ. Hlth, 36, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, S. (1949). On the classification of the Shigella Types. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Nicolle, P. & Jude, A. (1952 a). C.R. acad. Sci., Paris, 234, 1922.Google Scholar
Nicolle, P. & Jude, A. (1952 b). C.R. acad. Sci., Paris, 234, 2313.Google Scholar
Olitzki, L., Schelubsky, M. & Koch, P. K. (1946). J. Hyg., Camb., 44, 271.Google Scholar
Perch, B. (1950). Acta path. microbiol. scand. 27, 565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porges, O. & Prantschoff, A. (1906). Zbl. Bakt. (Abt. 1. Orig.), 41, 546.Google Scholar
Schelubsky, M. & Olitzki, L. (1947). J. Hyg., Camb., 45, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelubsky, M. & Olitzki, L. (1948). J. Hyg., Camb., 46, 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, H. (1944). J. Path. Bact. 56, 250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. (1949). J. Hyg., Camb., 47, 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stamp, , Lord, & Stone, D. M. (1944). J. Hyg., Camb., 43, 266.Google Scholar
Stuart, C. A. & Kennedy, E. R. (1948). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 68, 455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szejnberg, A. (1948). Harefuah, 34, no. 9 [Hebrew; English summary].Google Scholar
Taylor, J., Powell, B. W. & Wright, J. (1949). Brit. med. J. 2, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, M. E., Landy, M. & Freeman, M. E. (1952). J. Immunol. 69, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weil, E. & Felix, A. (1920). Z. ImmunForsch. 29, 24.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. S. & Miles, A. A. (1946). Principles of Bacteriology and Immunity. London: Arnold and Co.Google Scholar