Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:57:54.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Size of the Virus of Rabies (“Fixed” Strain) by Ultrafiltration Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

I. A. Galloway  and
W. J. Elford
I. A. Galloway
Affiliation:
From the National Institute for Medical Research, London, N. W. 3
W. J. Elford
Affiliation:
From the National Institute for Medical Research, London, N. W. 3
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Discussion and 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.

The filtration end-point of 0·2μ leads us to assign according to Elford (1933) a value 100—150 mμ. for the particle diameter of the virus of rabies. This figure we have previously reported in Ann. Report Med. Res. Council (1934) and also in a discussion held by the Royal Society of Medicine (Galloway, 1936). Recently the Japanese workers, Yaoi et al. (1936), using similar graded collodion membranes (gradocol) and the same general technique as employed in the present experiments, have studied independently another strain of “fixed” rabies virus “Fukuoka”. Their stock filtrates appear to have been more potent than ours, their figures for the limiting infective dilution being 10–3 to 10–4. The incubation period in rabbits inoculated with the “Fukuoka” strain is also shorter than in the case of rabbits inoculated with Pasteur Institute (Paris) strain. Even so, they find exactly the same value for the filtration end-point 0·2 μ as found by us for the Pasteur strain, thus indicating the particle size of these two “fixed” strains of rabies virus to be the same.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , October 1936 , pp. 532 - 535
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1936

References

Barnard, J. E. & Elford, W. J. (1931). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 109, 360.Google Scholar
Elford, W. J. (1931). J. Path. Bact. 34, 505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elford, W. J. (1933). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 112, 384.Google Scholar
Elford, W. J. & Galloway, I. A. (1933). Brit. J. Exp. Path. 14, 196.Google Scholar
Elford, W. J. & Galloway, I. A. (1934). Rep. Med. Res. Council, 1932–3, p. 40. London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Galloway, I. A. (1936). Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. 29, 563.Google Scholar
Galloway, I. A. & Elford, W. J. (1931). Brit. J. Exp. Path. 12, 407.Google Scholar
Marie, A. C. & Urbain, A. (1930). C.R. Soc. Biol. 103, 866.Google Scholar
Remlinger, P. (1903). Ann. Inst. Past. 17, 834.Google Scholar
Remlinger, P. (1904). Ann. Inst. Past. 18, 150.Google Scholar
Yaoi, H., Kanazawa, K. & Sato, K. (1936). Japan. J. Exp. Med. 14, 73.Google Scholar