Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:25:02.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The bactericidal Properties of Excretions of the Maggot of Lucilia sericata

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

S. W. Simmons
Affiliation:
Division of Insects Affecting Man and Animals, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Extract

The excretions of the blowfly maggot, Lucilia sericata, have been found to contain a potent bactericide, and the technique for the collection of this material is given. There is evidence that other insects besides the one investigated may also produce this substance.

The active principle is not destroyed by autoclaving at 10 pounds' pressure for 20 minutes and desiccation does not inactivate it.

The bactericidal action of the substance was demonstrated by tests on seven species of bacteria, most of which are of aetiological importance in osteomyelitis and other suppurative infections. The lethal action against such organisms seems to be an important factor in the good results obtained with maggot therapy.

The work seems to open a field in which interesting investigations could be conducted with possibilities of producing other new and useful disinfectants from living organisms.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1935

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

Duncan, J. T. (1926). On a bactericidal principle present in the alimentary canal of insects and Arachnids.—Parasitology 18, pp. 238252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham-Smith, G. S. (1914). Flies in relation to disease. Non-Bloodsucking Flies. Cambridge, 389 pp., illus.Google Scholar
Livingston, S. K. & Prince, L. H. (1932). The treatment of chronic osteomyelitis, with special reference to the use of the maggot active principle.—J. Amer. Med. Ass. 98, pp. 11431149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maseritz, I. H. (1934). Digestion of bone by larvae of Phormia regina. Its relationship to bacteria.—Arch. Surg. 28, pp. 589607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manson-Bahr, P. (1920). Bacillary Dysentery.—Trans. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 13, pp. 6472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholls, L. (1912). The transmission of pathogenic micro-organisms by flies in Saint Lucia.—Bull. Ent. Res. 3, pp. 8188, illus.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, W. (1934). Improved methods in the culture of sterile maggots for surgical use.—J. Lab. Clin. Med. 20, pp. 7785.Google Scholar
Robinson, W. & Norwood, V. H. (1933). The rôle of surgical maggots in the disinfection of osteomyelitis and other infected wounds.—J. Bone Joint Surg. 15, pp. 409412.Google Scholar
Ruehle, G. L. A. & Brewer, C. M. (1931). United States food and drug administration methods of testing antiseptics and disinfectants.—Circ. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 198, 20 pp.Google Scholar
Simmons, S. W. (1934). Sterilization of blowfly eggs in the culture of surgical maggots for use in the treatment of pyogenic infections.—Amer. J. Surg. (N.S.) 25, pp. 140147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, S. W. (1935). The adequacy of nutritional retardation in the culture of sterile maggots for surgical use.—Arch. Surg. (In press.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, S. W. (1935). A bactericidal principle in excretions of surgical maggots which destroys important etiological agents of pyogenic infections.—J. Bact. (In press.)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slocum, M. A., McClellan, R. H. & Messer, F. C. (1933). Investigation into the modes of action of blowfly maggots in the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis.—Pa. Med. J. 36, pp. 570573.Google Scholar
Stewart, M. A. (1934). The rôle of Lucilia sericata larvae in osteomyelitis wounds.—Ann. Trop. Med. Parasit. 28, pp. 445454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wollman, E. (1921). Le rôle des mouches dans le transport des germes pathogènes. Etudié par la méthode des élevages aseptiques.—Ann. Inst. Pasteur 35, pp. 431449, illus.Google Scholar