Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T07:26:30.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The pathogenic and immunogenic activities of Salmonella typhi in relation to its antigenic constituents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

A. Felix  and
R. Margaret Pitt
A. Felix
Affiliation:
From the Central Enteric Reference Laboratory and Bureau, Public Health Laboratory Service (Medical Research Council), London
R. Margaret Pitt
Affiliation:
From the Central Enteric Reference Laboratory and Bureau, Public Health Laboratory Service (Medical Research Council), 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.

1. The most virulent strains of Salmonella typhi are those that develop both the Vi and O antigens in maximum quantities.

2. The Vi antigen is not a particularly toxic substance; it is less toxic for the mouse than the O antigen.

3. The main biological function of the Vi antigen is to protect the O antigen against the action of the natural or immune O antibody, thereby protecting the bacterial cell against phagocytosis and the bactericidal action of the serum.

4. The relative virulence for mice of freshly isolated strains of Salmonella typhi reflects their virulence for man.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , March 1951 , pp. 92 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1951

References

REFERENCES

Batson, H. C., Landy, M. & Abrams, A. (1949). Publ. Hlth Rep., Wash., 64, 671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batson, H. C., Landy, M. & Brown, M. (1950 a). J. exp. Med. 91, 219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batson, H. C., Landy, M. & Brown, M. (1950 b). J. exp. Med. 91, 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bensted, H. J. (1937). J. R. Army med. Cps, 68,1.Google Scholar
Bhatnagar, S. S., Speechly, C. G. J. & Singh, M. (1938). J. Hyg., Camb., 38, 663.Google Scholar
Boivin, A. (1939). C. R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 130, 403.Google Scholar
Boivin, A. & Mesrobeanu, L. (1938). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 61, 426.Google Scholar
Bruce White, P. (1931). J. Path. Bact. 34, 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce White, P. (1932). J. Path. Bact. 35, 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, P. F. & Ruehl, W. H. (1919). J. Bact. 4, 615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craigie, J. & Brandon, K. F. (1936). J. Path. Bact. 43, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craigie, J. & Yen, C. H. (1938). Canad. Publ. Hlth J. 29, 484.Google Scholar
Felix, A. (1924). J. Immunol. 9, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, A. (1930). Lancet, 1, 505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, A. (1938). J. Hyg., Camb., 38, 750.Google Scholar
Felix, A. (1940). Proc. 3rd Int. Congr. Microbiol. (1939), p. 798: New York.Google Scholar
Felix, A. (1951). J. Hyg., Camb. (in the press).Google Scholar
Felix, A. & Anderson, E. S. (1951). J. Hyg., Camb. (in the press).Google Scholar
Felix, A. & Bhatnagar, S. S. (1935). Brit. J. exp. Path. 16, 422.Google Scholar
Felix, A., & Bhatnagar, S. S. & Pitt, R. M. (1934). brit. J. exp. Path. 15, 346.Google Scholar
Felix, A. & Olitzki, L. (1926). J. Hyg., Camb., 28, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, A. & Petrie, G. F. (1938). J. Hyg., Camb., 38, 673.Google Scholar
Felix, A. & Pitt, R. M. (1934 a). J. Path. Bact. 38, 409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, A. & Pitt, R. M. (1934 b). Lancet, 1, 186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, A. & Pitt, R. M. (1935). J. Hyg., Camb., 35, 428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, A. & Pitt, R. M. (1936). Brit. J. exp. Path. 17, 81.Google Scholar
Findlay, H. T. (1951). J. Hyg., Camb., 49, 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, D. W. (1939 a). Brit. J. exp. Path. 20,1.Google Scholar
Henderson, D. W. (1939 b). Brit. J. exp. path. 20, 11.Google Scholar
Henderson, D. W. & Morgan, W. T. J. (1938). Brit. J. exp. Path. 19, 82.Google Scholar
Henrici, A. T. (1926). J. infect. Dis. 38, 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffmann, F. (1935). Z. Hyg. InfektKr. 116, 617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffmann, F. (1936). Z. Hyg. InfektKr. 117, 778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffmann, F. (1941). die Bakkeriologie der Salmonella-Gruppe. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Kauffmann, F. & Møller, E. (1940). J. Hyg., Camb., 40, 246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longfellow, D. & Luippold, G.F. (1943). Amer.J.Hyg., 37, 206.Google Scholar
Luippold, G. F. (1946). Amer. J. Publ. Hlth, 36, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, W. T. J. (1937). Biochem. J. 31, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, J. & Kauffmann, F. (1936). J. Hyg., Cam, 36, 514.Google Scholar
Perry, H. M., Findlay, H. T. & Bensted, H. J. (1933 a). J. R. Army med. Cps, 60, 241.Google Scholar
Perry, H. M., Findlay, H. T. & Bensted, H. J. (1933 b). J. R. Army med. Cps, 61, 81.Google Scholar
Scholtens, R. Th. (1937). Zbl. Bakt. (Abt. 1, Org.), 139, 467.Google Scholar
Siler, J. F. et al. (1941). Immunization to Typhoid Fever. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Weil, E. & Felix, A. (1920). Z. ImmunForsch. 29, 24.Google Scholar
Weil, A. J., Gall, L. S. & Wieder, S. (1939). Arch. Path. 28, 71.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. S. (1926). J. Hyg., Camb., 25, 150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar