Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:47:31.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the effect of staphyloccoccal culture filtrates on isolated rabbit gut

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

J. C. Kelsey  and
Betty C. Hobbs
J. C. Kelsey
Affiliation:
The Food Hygiene Laboratory, Central Public Health Laboratory (Medical Research Council), Colindale
Betty C. Hobbs
Affiliation:
The Food Hygiene Laboratory, Central Public Health Laboratory (Medical Research Council), Colindale
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. When toxic filtrates derived from coagulase-positive staphylococci including twelve food-poisoning strains, thirty pyogenic strains of human and twelve of animal origin were applied to isolated rabbit gut in vitro, two characteristic responses were obtained, associated with the α- and β-lytic titres respectively, and abolished by the corresponding antisera. They were independent of the origin of the strains.

2. A non-specific response is also described which is thought to be due to the peptone in the medium.

3. No effect that could be attributed to enterotoxin, such as was reported by Anderson (1953), was observed and it is concluded that isolated rabbit gut is unlikely to prove a useful indicator of its presence.

We are indebted to Drs Mary Barber, J. M. Talbot, F. C. O. Valentine and H. Williams Smith for strains; to Dr R. E. O. Williams for strains and bacteriophage typing; to Prof. C. E. Dolman and Messrs Burroughs Wellcome for strains and antisera; to Mr F. Crisp of the Division of Experimental Biology, National Institute for Medical Research, Medical Research Council, for rabbit gut; and Dr H. O. Schild for continued interest and practical help.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , December 1954 , pp. 502 - 509
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1954

References

Anderson, K. (1953). Brit. J. exp. Path. 34, 548.Google Scholar
Anderson, K., James, D. M. & Marks, J. (1954). J. Hyg., Camb., 52, 492.Google Scholar
Bayliss, M. (1940). J. exp. Med. 72, 669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolman, C. E. & Wilson, R. J. (1938). J. Immunol. 35, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elek, S. D. & Levy, E. (1950). J. Path. Bact. 62, 541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, B. C. (1948). J. Hyg., Camb., 46, 222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richmond, J. J., Reed, C. I., Shaughnessy, H. J. & Michael, V. (1942). J. Bact. 44, 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, G. S. & Atkinson, J. D. (1945). Lancet, 1, 647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. E. O. & Rippon, J. E. (1952). J. Hyg., Camb., 50, 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. E. O., Rippon, J. E. & Dowsett, L. M. (1953). Lancet, 1, 510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar