Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T11:28:33.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Researches on the Intestinal Protozoa of Monkeys and Man

VI. Experiments with the Trichomonads of Man and the Macaques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Clifford Dobell
Clifford Dobell
Affiliation:
National Institute for Medical Research, London, N.W. 3
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It will be convenient at this point, before proceeding to a more general discussion of the findings, to summarize all the experiments recorded in the eight preceding subsections. Briefly the results are as follows:

(i) An attempt to infect a Macacus rhesus by feeding it with Trichomonas isolated from a monkey of the same species failed completely.

(ii) Four similar attempts to infect a Macacus sinicus with the same Trichomonas (from M. rhesus) were equally unsuccessful.

(iii) Two attempts to infect another M. sinicus by intra-intestinal inoculation with the same flagellate were likewise wholly negative.

(iv) One attempt to infect a man per os with the same strain of Trichomonas (from M. rhesus) did not succeed.

(v) A strain of Trichomonas from Man, when fed to a Macacus rhesus, produced no infection.

(vi) The same strain (T. hominis) fed to a Macacus sinicus likewise failed to infect.

(vii) A strain of Trichomonas from Macacus nemestrinus, however, when fed to M. rhesus, gave rise to a temporary infection lasting about a month.

(viii) This Trichomonas (from M. nemestrinus, after passage through M. rhesus) produced, nevertheless, a permanent infection—lasting 4½ years to date—when fed to a man.

(ix) The same strain of Trichomonas (from M. nemestrinus), after passage through M. rhesus and Man, when fed to a Macacus sinicus gave rise to an infection which endured for approximately 1½ months and then died out. But

(x) The very same Trichomonas (which was derived from M. nemestrinus, and which produced a temporary intestinal infection in M. rhesus and M. sinicus, and a permanent intestinal infection in Man) when introduced into the vagina of M. sinicus established itself enduringly as a typical “T. vaginalis.” The infection has now persisted for ome 3⅓ years.

(xi) The monkey (M. sinicus) in which a permanent vaginal infection with an intestinal Trichtomonas was established, has probably since reacquired no permanent intestinal infection—despite every natural opportunity for such reinfection.

(xii) No macaque suffered any harm whatsoever as a result of inoculation with any strain of Trichomonas–whether successful or unsuccessful.

(xiii) The one man successfully infected with Trichomonas (from M. nemestrinus) has likewise remained normal ever since.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , October 1934 , pp. 531 - 577
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1934

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

Andrews, M. N. (1929). Observations on Trichomonas vaginalis Donné, 1837; with particular reference to its incidence in England and its cultivation. J. Trop. Med. & Hyg. 32, 237.Google Scholar
Bishop, A. (1927). The effect of increased and decreased oxygen pressure upon the intestinal protozoa of Macacus rhesus. Parasitology, 19, 401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, A. (1930). The action of hydrochloric acid upon cultures of Trichomonas. Parasitology, 22, 230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, A. (1931). The morphology and method of division of Trichomonas. Parasitology, 23, 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branch, A. and Gay, D. M. (1927). Diarrhea in monkeys (Macacus rhesus) with Oesophagosternum, Strongyloides and Trichomonas infections. Amer. J. Trop. Med. 7, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brumpt, E. (1909). [Discussion, in:] Bull. Soc. Path. Exot. 2, 20.Google Scholar
Brumpt, E. (1913). Précis de Parasitologie. (2e éd.) 8°. Paris.Google Scholar
Brumpt, E. (1925). Recherches morphologiques et expbrimentales sur le Trichoinonas felis da Cunha et Muniz, 1922, parasite du chat et du chien. Ann. Parasitol. 3, 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castellani, A. and Chalmers, A. J. (1919). Manual of Tropical Medicine. (3rd ed.) 8°. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunha, A. M. DA and Muniz, J. (1929). Nota sobre os parasitas intestinaes do Macacus rhesus, com a descripçâo de urna nova especie de Octomitus. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz. Suppl. No. 5, p. 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das Gupta, B. M. (1933). Fatal Flexner bacillus infection in an anthropoid ape (Hylobatea hoolocic). Indian Med. Gaz. 68, 138.Google Scholar
Deschiens, R. (1927). Sur les protozoaires intestinaux des singes. Bull. Soc. Path. Exot. 20, 19.Google Scholar
Dobell, C. (1928). Researches on the intestinal Protozoa of Monkeys and Man.—i. General introduction, and ii. Description of the whole life-history of Entamoeba histolytica in cultures. Parasitology, 20, 357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobell, C. with Bishop, A. (1929). Idem. III. The action of emetine on natural amoebic infections in macaques. Parasitology, 21, 446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobell, C. with Bishop, A. (1931). Idem. iv. An experimental study of the histolytica-like species of Entanweba living naturally in macaques. Parasitology, 23, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobell, C. with Bishop, A. (1933). Idem. v. The Endolimax of macaques. Parasitology, 25, 436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobell, C. and Laiblaw, P. P. (1926). On the cultivation of Entamoeba histolytica and some other entozoic amoebae. Parasitology, 18, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobell, C. and O'Connor, F. W. (1921). The Intestinal Protozoa of Man. 8°. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green-Armytage, V. B. (1931). Gynaecological progress. Indian Med. Gaz. 66, 95.Google ScholarPubMed
Greta, E. D. W. and Wells, R. T. (1911). Dysentery and liver abscess in Bombay. Sci. Mem. Med. & Sanit. Depts. Govt. India. No. 47. (Calcutta.)Google Scholar
Hegner, R. (1928). Experimental transmission of trichomonads from the intestine and vagina of monkeys to the vagina of monkeys (Macacus rhesus). J. Parasitol. 14, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegner, R. (1929). The protozoa of wild monkeys. Science, 70, 539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hegner, R. (1934). Effects of environmental changes and disinfectants and antiseptics on Trichomonas hominis in culture and in feces. Amer. J. Hyg. 19, 22.Google Scholar
Hegner, R. (1934 a). Intestinal protozoa of chimpanzees. Amer. J. Hyg. 19, 480.Google Scholar
Hegner, B. and Chu, H. J. (1930). A comparative study of the intestinal protozoa of wild monkeys and man. Amer. J. Hyg. 12, 62.Google Scholar
Hegner, R. and Ratcliffe, H. (1927). Trichomonads from the vagina of the monkey from the mouth of the cat and man, and from the intestine of the monkey, opossum and prairie-dog. J. Parasitol. 14, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogue, M. J. (1922). A study of Trichomonas hominis, its cultivation, its inoculation into animals and its staining reaction to vital dyes. Johns Hopkins Hosp. Bull. 33, 437.Google Scholar
Kessel, J. F. (1924). The experimental transfer of certain intestinal protozoa from man to monkeys. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. & Med. 22, 206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessel, J. F. (1928). Intestinal protozoa of monkeys. Univ. California Publ. Zool. 31, 275.Google Scholar
Kessel, J. F. (1928 a). Trichomoniasis in kittens. Trans. Roy. Soc. Trop. Med. & Hyg. 22, 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessel, J. F. (1933). An attempt to transmit Trichomonas vaginalis to the intestinal tract of kittens. J. Parasitol. 20, 124.Google Scholar
Levy, M. D. (1922). The treatment of Trichomonas intestinalia infections. Amer. J. Trop. Med. 2, 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mello, U. (1923). L' amebiasi nei Primati. Ann. d' Igiene, 33, 533.Google Scholar
Noc, F. (1908). Un cas de dysenterie à Balantidium chez le Macacus cynomolgus; C.R.. Soc. Biol. 64, 878.Google Scholar
v. Prowazek, S. (1912). Weiterer Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Entamöben. vi. Arch. Protistenk. 26, 241.Google Scholar
Reichenow, E. (1925). Die Aufnahme rotor Blutkörperchen durch Trichomonas. Arch. Schiffs- u. Tropenhyg. 29, 519.Google Scholar
Reichenow, E. (1931). Die pathogenetische Bedeutung der Darmprotozoen des Menschen. Zbl. Bakt. i (Orig.), (Beth.) 122, *195 (Vereinig. f. Mikrobiol.).Google Scholar
Report of the Medical Research Council for the Year 1924–5. London: H.M. Stationery Office. 1925.Google Scholar
Report of the Medical Research Council, for 1929–1930. Zbl. Bakt. 1931.Google Scholar
Report of the Medical Research Council, for 1930–1931. Zbl. Bakt. 1932.Google Scholar
Tsuchiya, H. (1925). Pathogenicity of Trichomonas intestinalis. Arch. Intern. Med. 36, 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenrich, D. H. (1933). A species of Hexamita (Protozoa, Flagellata) from the intestine of a monkey (Macacne rhesus). J. Parasitol. 19, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenyon, C. M. (1920). Histological observations on the possible pathogenicity of Trichomonas intestinales [etc.]. J. Trop. Med. & Hyg. 23, 125.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, S. (1932). The Social Life of Monkeys and Apes. 8°. London.Google Scholar