Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:40:22.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Immunisation with Inactive Vaccinia Virus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

J. O. W. Bland
J. O. W. Bland
Affiliation:
(From the Freedom Research Laboratory, the London Hospital, Whitechapel, E. 1.)
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.

Experiments were carried out on rabbits, guinea-pigs and monkeys to test the immunity produced by vaccinia virus killed with heat, phenol or formalin. Before use, the vaccines were rigorously tested for their inactivity by a method of inoculation and triple passage in series. The test of immunity was quantitative.

The rabbit experiments gave equivocal results but indicated that a slight immunity was produced in some cases. In guinea-pigs more success was obtained: they could be protected against one to ten minimal infecting doses and showed a partial immunity to stronger tests. Monkeys were only tried in one experiment in which a weak vaccine was used. This did not protect them.

The superiority of guinea-pigs for this kind of work is discussed as also the bearing of the results obtained with them on the nature of immunity to vaccinia virus.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , January 1932 , pp. 55 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1932

References

Bedson, S. P. and Bland, J. O. W. (1929). Brit. J. Exp. Path. 10, 393.Google Scholar
Bedson, S. P., Maitland, H. B. and Burbury, Y. M. (1927). J. Comp. Path. and Ther. 40, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, W. L., Craigie, J. and Tulloch, W. J. (1929). Med. Council Spec. Rep. Series No. 143. London (H.M. Stationery Office).Google Scholar
Bussel, and Mayzner, (1930). C.R. Soc. Biol. 103, 411.Google Scholar
Gordon, M. H. (1925). Med. Council Spec. Rep. Series. No. 98. London (H.M. Stationery Office).Google Scholar
Hindle, E. (1928). Brit. Med. J. 1, 976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hindle, E. (1929). Trans. Roy. Soc. Trop. Med. and Hyg. 22, 405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwanoff, K. (1927). Berlin, tierärztl. Wschr. 43, 752.Google Scholar
Kraus, R. (1930). Z. f. Immunitätsforsch. 69, 413.Google Scholar
Laidlaw, P. P. and Dunkin, G. M. (1928). J. Comp. Path. and Ther. 41, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lentz, O. and Gins, H. A. (1927). Handbuch der Pockenbekämpfung und Impfung, p. 816. Berlin (Richard Schoetz).Google Scholar
Rhoads, C. P. (1931). J. Exp. Med. 53, 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semple, D. (1911). Sci. Mem. Med. Sanit. Depts. Ind. No. 44.Google Scholar
Todd, C. (1928). Brit. J. Exp. Path. 9, 101.Google Scholar