Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T03:12:32.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VII.—Lack of Transmission of Avian Tumour Virus from Carrier Hens to their Offspring via the Egg

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

J. G. Carr
J. G. Carr
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics.
Get access

Extract

The frequent reports of 20 per cent, or more losses due to neoplastic diseases in poultry flocks indicate that this is one of the greatest troubles of the industry. Though certain of the avian tumours have been favourite subjects for experimental cancer research, little attention has been directed to the problem of the ætiology and control of avian cancer itself. Consequently, despite the urgency of the problem, there is little information available which can be used as a basis for prescribing any preventive measures. It is not even known whether the majority of the spontaneous tumours are induced by a virus. Not many attempts have been made to transplant and study these tumours, considering the wealth of material available; and only a small proportion of the attempts have succeeded. Though most of these successfully transplanted sarcomas were found to be associated with a causative virus, it is impossible to state whether this is the usual condition of spontaneous tumours, or whether the few successful transplants were aberrant forms whose associated virus altered the growth characteristics and thus enabled a successful transplant to be made more easily.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , 1944 , pp. 54 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1944

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 to Literature

Amies, C. R., and Carr, J. G., 1939. “Immunological experiments with highly concentrated suspensions of the Rous 1 tumour-producing agent,” Journ. Path. Bact., XLIX, 497–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrewes, C. H., 1932. “Some properties of immune sera active against fowl-tumour viruses,” Journ. Path. Bact., XXXV, 243–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrewes, C. H., 1939. “The occurrence of neutralising antibodies for Rous sarcoma virus in the sera of young ‘normal’ chicks,” Journ. Path. Bact., XLVIII, 225–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bürger, M., 1914. “Untersuchungen über das Hühnersarkom (Peyton Rous),” Zeits. Krebsforsch., XIV, 526–531.Google Scholar
Carr, J. G., 1942. “Observations upon spontaneously recurring Rous No. 1 tumours,” Brit. Journ. Exp. Path., XXIII, 206–213.Google Scholar
Carr, J. G., 1943 a. “Some investigations upon the nature of the resistance of an inbred line of fowls to the development of the Rous No. 1 sarcoma,” Brit. Journ. Exp. Path., XXIV, 127–132.Google Scholar
Carr, J. G., 1943 b. “Prolonged antibody production following recovery of fowls from Rous No. 1 sarcoma,” Brit. Journ. Exp. Path., XXIV, 138–140.Google Scholar
Carr, J. G., 1944. “The tumour virus disseminated from Rous No. 1 tumours,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., LXII, B, 51.Google Scholar
Costa, A., 1932. “Versuche über die Übertragung der experimentellen Tumoren der Hühner und Säugetiere durch Gehirnbrei von an Tumoren erkranten Tieren,” Zeits. Krebsforsch., XXXVI, 233–244.Google Scholar
Doerr, R., Bleyer, L., and Schmidt, G. W., 1932. “Über das Verhalten des Virus des Rous-Sarkoms in der Blutzirculation refactarer und empfänglicher Tiere,” Zeits. Krebsforsch., XXXVI, 256–275.Google Scholar
Fränkel, E., 1927. “Untersuchungen über die Roustumoren beim Huhn,” Zeits. Krebsforsch., XXV, 407–420.Google Scholar
Fujinami, A., and Suzue, K., 1925. “Contribution to the pathology of tumour growth. Experiments on transplantable chicken sarcoma,” Trans. Jap. Path. Soc., XV, 281–289.Google Scholar
Greenwood, A. W., 1940. Ann. Rep. Brit. Empire Cancer Campaign, p. 237.Google Scholar
Gye, W. E., and Purdy, W. J., 1930. “The Rous sarcoma No. 1: loss of filtrate activity at incubator temperature: protection by means of hydrocyanic acid,” Brit. Journ. Exp. Path., XI, 282–286.Google Scholar
Ikeda, T., 1930. “An experimental study on the heredity of fowl sarcoma,” Trans. Jap. Path. Soc., XX, 698–701.Google Scholar
Jukes, T. H., and Kay, H. D., 1932. “The immunological behavior of the second protein (livetin) of hen's egg yolk,” Journ. Exp. Med., LVI, 469–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klemperer, F., 1893. “Über natürliche Immunität und ihre Verwerthung für die Immunisirungstherapie,” Arch. Exp. Path. Pharmak., XXXI, 356–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellanby, E., 1938. “The transmission of the Rous filterable agent to the tissues of normal fowls,” Journ. Path. Bact., XLVII, 47–64.Google Scholar
Mio, T., 1929. “Contributions to the experimentaL studies on chicken tumours, with speciaL reference to the continuous proliferation of transplantable chicken sarcoma and egg inheritance,” Jap. Med. World, IX, 121–123.Google Scholar
Mitsuo, I., 1928. “Experimental studies on chicken sarcoma,” Trans. Jap. Path. Soc., XVIII, 622–624.Google Scholar
Oshima, F., and Tomazawa, S., 1931. “Studies on the chicken sarcoma,” Trans. Jap. Path. Soc., XXI, 792–794.Google Scholar
Pentimalli, F., 1924. “Über Metastasenbildungen beim Hühnersarkom,” Zeits. Krebsforsch., XXII, 62–73.Google Scholar
Rous, P., Murphy, J. B., and Tytler, W. H., 1912. “The relation between a chicken sarcoma's behaviour and the growth's filterable cause,” Journ. Amer. Med. Ass., LVIII, 1840.Google Scholar