Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T01:44:19.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Improved Assay for the Infectivity of Influenza Viruses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

S. Fazekas de St Groth  and
D. O. White
S. Fazekas de St Groth
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Australian National University, Canberra
D. O. White
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Australian National University, Canberra
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.

The standard tests for infectivity of influenza viruses in eggs or mice have two major shortcomings. First, the host systems are known to be inhomogeneous, i.e. the response does not depend solely on the dose; and second, this variation from host to host cannot be assessed independently, since a single test only can be made on any one egg or mouse. Thus, the two probabilities—the presence of an infective unit in the inoculum and the success of a particular virus-host interaction—are confounded, so that we estimate not the number of infective units but an unknown function of this number. Valid comparisons of infectivity can still be made as long as one is satisfied with a relative answer, and does not wish to inquire into the nature of host-resistance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , March 1958 , pp. 151 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1958

References

REFERENCES

Burnet, F. M., Beveridge, W. I. B., Bull, D. R. & Clark, E. (1942). Med. J. Aust. ii, 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, J. B., Eaton, M. D. & Perry, M. E. (1952). J. Immunol. 69, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaton, M. D. (1952). Arch. ges. Virusforsch. 5, 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, B. (1953). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 85, 222.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, B. (1954). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 86, 710.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, B. (1955). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 88, 96.Google Scholar
Fazekas de St Groth, S. (1955). J. Hyg., Camb., 53, 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulton, F. & Armitage, P. (1951). J. Hyg., Camb., 49, 247.Google Scholar
Fulton, F. & Isaacs, A. (1953). J. gen. Microbiol. 9, 119.Google Scholar
Hanks, J. H. (1948). J. cell. comp. Physiol. 31, 235.Google Scholar
Horváth, S. (1954). Acta microbiol. Ac. Sci. Hung. 1, 481.Google Scholar
Kantorowicz, O. (1951). J. gen. Microbiol. 5, 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamm, I., Folkers, K. & Horsfall, F. L. (1953). J. exp. Med. 98, 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weller, T. H. & Enders, J. F. (1948). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. N.Y., 69, 124.Google Scholar
Wunder, C. C., Brandon, F. B. & Brinton, C. C. (1954). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. N.Y., 86, 561.Google Scholar