Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:25:28.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spontaneous Agglutination of the Cholera Vibrio in Relation to Variability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

A. T. Shousha
A. T. Shousha
Affiliation:
Bacteriologist, Public Health Laboratories, Cairo.
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.

Spontaneous agglutination is a not uncommon occurrence, especially in the case of organisms of the enteric and diphtheria group, where it causes some difficulty in serological diagnosis. Many investigations have been made to clear up the principles of this phenomenon. Recently Arkwright (1921) has thrown much light on this problem. He was able to isolate from old pure cultures of dysentery, typhoid, paratyphoid and enteritidis (Gaertner) bacilli, two variants which he named the “R” (rough) and “S” (smooth). The “R” variant agglutinates spontaneously in physiological saline and in broth, while the “S” variant forms good emulsions in both. Specific immune sera prepared for these two variants show only slight cross-agglutination. Arkwright regards the two forms as potentially inherent in most of the individuals in the young culture, which may become segregated in different individuals in old cultures. “Rough” varieties have been observed also by Zoeller (1922) in B. dysenteriae Shiga and by Schütze (1921) in B. paratyphosus B.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , December 1923 , pp. 156 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1923

References

REFERENCES

Arkwright, J. A. (1921). Journ. Path. and Bact. XXIV. 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerthlein, (1912). Arb. a. d. Kaiserl. Ges. XL. 433.Google Scholar
Beniasch, M. (1912). Zeitschr. f. Immunitätsf. XII. 268.Google Scholar
Friedberger, E., and Luerssen, A. (1905). Deutsche med. Woch. p. 1597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gildemeister, E., and Günther, K. (1919). Centralbl.f. Bakt. Abt. I. (Orig.), LXXXIII. 391.Google Scholar
Greig, E. D. W. (1913). Ind. Journ. Med. Res. I. 276.Google Scholar
Hamburger. Cited by Volk (1909) in Kraus and Levaditi's Handbuch, II. 636.Google Scholar
De Kruif, P. H. (1921). Journ. Exp. Med. XXXIII. 773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Kruif, P. H. (1922 a). Journ. Exp. Med. XXXV. 561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Kruif, P. H. (1922 b). Journ. Exp. Med. XXXVI. 309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liefmann, H. (1913). München. med. Woch. p. 1417.Google Scholar
Mellon, R. (1922). Journ. Med. Res. XLIII. 345.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. (1911). Deutsche med. Woch. p. 969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porges, O., and Prantschoff, A. (1906). Centralbl.f. Bakt. Abt. I (Orig.), XLI. 466.Google Scholar
Schütze, H. (1921). Journ. Hyg. XX. 330.Google Scholar
Zoeller, C. (1922). Compt. rend. Soc. Biol. LXXXIV. 87.Google Scholar