Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:01:20.734Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies in the epidemiology of infectious myxomatosis of rabbits*: VII. The virulence of strains of myxoma virus recovered from Australian wild rabbits between 1951 and 1959

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

I. D. Marshall  and
Frank Fenner
I. D. Marshall
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
Frank Fenner
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
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.

During the 8½ years, February 1951 to July 1959, 672 strains of myxoma virus were recovered from the field in Australia, all but thirteen, which were derived from mosquito pools, being extracted from the tissues of infected wild rabbits. These were tested for virulence by the intradermal inoculation of small groups of rabbits with a small dose of virus. Based primarily on survival times, strains have been allocated to five grades of virulence, ranging from very high to very low. In spite of inadequate sampling during the first 5 years there has clearly been a trend from a predominance of highly virulent strains in the initial epizootics to a mixture of strains of virulence varying from very high (rarely) to very low. For the last 6 years the proportion of strains allotted to the different virulence grades has remained almost constant, just over half the strains tested each year being classified as moderately virulent.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 58 , Issue 4 , December 1960 , pp. 485 - 488
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

References

Fenner, F. (1959 a). Brit. Med. Bull. 15, 240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenner, F. (1959 b). The Harvey Lectures 1957–58. Ser. 53, p. 25. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fenner, F., Day, M. F. & Woodroofe, G. M. (1956). J. Hyg., Camb., 54, 284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenner, F. & Marshall, I. D. (1957). J. Hyg., Camb., 55, 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenner, F., Marshall, I. D. & Woodroofe, G. M. (1953). J. Hyg., Camb., 51, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenner, F., Poole, W. E., Marshall, I. D. & Dyce, A. L. (1957). J. Hyg., Camb., 55, 192.Google Scholar
Marshall, I. D. (1959). J. Hyg., Camb., 57, 484.Google Scholar
Marshall, I. D., Dyce, A. L., Poole, W. E. & Fenner, F. (1955). J. Hyg., Camb., 53, 12.Google Scholar
Marshall, I. D. & Fenner, F. (1958). J. Hyg., Camb., 56, 288.Google Scholar
Myers, K., Marshall, I. D. & Fenner, F. (1954). J. Hyg., Camb., 52, 337.Google Scholar
Mykytowycz, R. (1953). Nature, Lond., 172, 448.Google Scholar
Ratcliffe, F. N., Myers, K., Fennessy, B. V. & Calaby, J. H. (1952). Nature, Lond., 170, 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar