Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:39:54.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of some variables on experimental Klebsiella infections in mice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Samuel S. Epstein  and
Peter M. Payne
Samuel S. Epstein
Affiliation:
The Department of Pathology, Institute of Laryngology and Otology, London
Peter M. Payne
Affiliation:
The Royal Marsden Hospital, London
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 virulence of nine strains of Klebsiella was tested in mice inoculated by peritoneal and oral routes, the latter being a convenient method of inducing pneumonic infections.

At similar doses, shorter survival was observed in young mice. Injected by the intraperitoneal route, organisms from 16 hr. old cultures proved more virulent than those from older cultures, but no such difference was obtained orally. Repeated subculture of a virulent strain failed to attenuate its oral virulence and killed suspensions of the same strain were without effect. With only two exceptions, all strains were more virulent when administered orally than intraperitoneally. Wherever possible the concept of relative virulence was employed in making statistical comparisons. It is, however, considered that virulence is an unsatisfactory taxonomic discriminant.

We would like to thank Dr I. Friedmann, Dr F. Fulton and Dr G. Meynell for their helpful criticism. We are also indebted to Dr Lynne Reid for her comments and to Mr G. B. Newman for checking the calculations. Thanks are also due to Mr G. D. Breach and Mr G. Latchford for technical assistance, to Mr D. Connolly for preparation of graphs and Mrs A. Gorvin for secretarial assistance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , March 1959 , pp. 68 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

References

REFERENCES

Baer, H., Bringaze, J. K. & McNamee, M. (1954). J. Bact. 67, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutton, A. A. C. (1955). Brit. J. exp. Path. 36, 128.Google Scholar
Ehrenworth, L. & Baer, H. (1956). J. Bact. 72, 713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S. S. (1958). J. Hyg., Camb., 56, 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S. S. (1959 a). J. clin. Path. 12, 52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S. S. (1959 b). J. Path. Bact. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Epstein, S. S. & Stratton, K. (1958). J. Hyg., Camb., 56, 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fieller, E. C. (1940). J. R. Statist. Soc. (Suppl.) 7, 1.Google Scholar
Kauffman, F. (1951). Enterobacteriaceae. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Knoll, K. H. (1953). Zbl. Bakt. 160, 444.Google Scholar
Landy, M. & Pillemer, L. (1956). J. exp. Med. 104, 383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, C. M. & Krauss, M. R. (1950). J. exp. Med. 92, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowley, D. (1956). Brit. J. exp. Path. 37, 223.Google Scholar