Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:49:08.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Follow-up of P32 Labelled Infective Larvae of Wuchereria bancrofti in the Skin of a Kitten

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2009

A. S. Dissanaike ,
G. A. Dissanaike ,
W. J. Niles  and
R. Surendranathan
A. S. Dissanaike
Affiliation:
Department of Parasitology, University of Ceylon, Colombo
G. A. Dissanaike
Affiliation:
Physical Laboratories, University of Ceylon, Peradeniya
W. J. Niles
Affiliation:
Medical Research Institute, Colombo
R. Surendranathan
Affiliation:
Medical Research Institute, Colombo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In two previous papers (Dissanaike et al., 1957a and 1957b) we described the technique of tagging Culex fatigans and Armigeres subalbatus (=obturbans) with P32 to obtain high beta activities. Filarial larvae were made to develop to the infective stage in these activated mosquitoes and were found to have beta activities high enough for detection individually.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 40 , Issue 3-4 , September 1966 , pp. 297 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Dissanaike, A. S., 1962.—“The use of radioisotopcs in the study of helminth life cycles”. Radioisotopes in Tropical Medicine; International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1902, 323–340.Google Scholar
Dissanaike, A. S., Dissanaike, G. A. and Niles, W. J., 1957a.—“Production of radioactive infective larvae of Wuchereria bancrofti in Culex fatigans.” Exper. Parasit., 6, 52–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dissanaike, G. A., Niles, W. J. and Surendranatiian, R., 1957b.—“Further studies on radioactive mosquitoes and filarial larvae using autoradiographic technique.” Exper. Parasit., 6, 201–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dissanaike, G. A., and Niles, W. J., 1905.—“Attempts to transmit Wuchereria bancrofti to cats and to a toque monkey.” Ann. trop. Med. Parasit., 59, 189–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dissanaike, G. A., Jeffery, G. M. and Barton, B. P., 1958.—“Radioactive tagging of hookworm Larvae (Necator americanus) with P32.” Exper. Parasit., 7, 249–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ewert, A., 1906.—“Mosquito-parasite relationships in filariasis.” Second International Conference,Parasitic Diseases,Bangkok, Thailand. Abstracts, (mimeographed), p. 41–43.Google Scholar
Ramachandran, C. P., 1906.—Personal Communication.Google Scholar
Yokogawa, S., 1939a.—“Studies on the mode of transmission of Wuchereria bancrofti. Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg., 32, 653–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yokogawa, S., 1939b.—“Transmission of W. bancrofti.” Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg., 33, 303–364 (Correspondence).CrossRefGoogle Scholar