Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T05:46:03.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Serum Reactions (Complement Fixation) of the Meningococcus and the Gonococcus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

J. A. Arkwright
J. A. Arkwright
Affiliation:
(From the Bacteriological Department, Lister Institute.)
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 results which were obtained in the foregoing six experiments and are detailed in Tables I to VI may be summarised as follows.

It is seen then that any attempt to classify these two groups of cocci by means of complement-binding reactions would arrange them into more or less well marked sub-groups, some of which would contain both meningococcal and gonococcal strains, and some perhaps strains from only one of these groups.

It will be noticed that extracts of three strains of Meningococcus (119, 162 and 164) showed an especial tendency to give negative or feeble complement-fixation reactions with heterologous meningococcal sera, and two of these strains (119 and 162) also gave negative reactions with some of the gonococcal sera. Though the complement-fixation reactions of the strains used in this research were not fully worked out on account of the difficulty in obtaining satisfactory sera, nevertheless the following classification appears to be indicated having regard to complement-fixation alone.

Sub-group II has affinities for sub-groups I and III, but there is little, if any, affinity shown between I and III directly. M. 119 shows slight affinity for M. 141, but for no other strains.

The sub-groups are not clearly defined, but overlap and are connected with each other in various directions. For instance G. 1, M. 135 and G. 2 all appear to have common receptors, and M. 135 and G. 2 also have receptors in common with G. 4 and M. 162, but G. 1 shows no affinity for these two latter strains.

The explanation of these facts is not quite simple but they may be explained by assuming, (1) that several group antigens occur which are common to the Meningococcus and the Gonococcus, but only some of which are present in any given strain of coccus, and (2) that specific antigens which are peculiar to the Meningococcus on the one hand or to the Gonococcus on the other hand do occur, but are often absent in the case of any given strain.

The second assumption is perhaps unnecessary, and the first is almost equivalent to affirming the occurrence of special antigens peculiar to certain sub-groups which contain strains of both Meningococcus and Gonococcus.

The evidence, then, from complement-fixation experiments as also from other serum tests as far as they are of any value, appears to point to a closer relationship between some strains of Gonococcus and some strains of Meningococcus than between different sub-groups of Meningococcus. In fact rather the unity of these two groups than any essential difference between them, is suggested by these facts.

These considerations lend further support to the view that the most constant bacteriological characters available for differentiating the Meningococcus from the Gonococcus are the cultural characters seen when the organisms are grown on agar of different degrees of alkalinity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 1911 , pp. 515 - 530
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1911

References

Arkwright, J. A. (1907). On variations of the Meningococcus and its differentiation from other cocci occuring in the cerebro-spinal fluid. Journ. of Hyg. Vol. VII. p. 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arkwright, J. A. (1909). Varieties of the Meningococcus with special reference to a comparison of strains from epidemic and sporadic sources. Journ. of Hyg. Vol. IX. p. 104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colombo, G. L. (1911). Ueber die Komplementbindung als Prüfungsmethode der Meningokokken- und Gonokokken-sera und die Spezificität ihrer Ambozeptoren. Zeitschr. f. Immunitätsforsch. Abt. I, Orig. Vol. IX. p. 287.Google Scholar
Ditthorn, F. and Gildermeister, E. (1907). Die in Hygienischen Institut in Posen in der Zeit vom Sept. 1905 bis Mai 1906 ausgeführten Genickstarre-untersuchungen. Klin. Jahrb. Vol. XVII. p. 95.Google Scholar
Dopter, Ch. (I. 1909). Précipitines méningocoques et co-précipitines. Compt. rend. Soc. Biol. 1909, Vol. I. p. 1055.Google Scholar
Dopter, Ch. (II. 1909). Études de quelques germes isolés du rhino-pharynx, voisin du méningocoque (paraméningocoques). Compt. rend. Soc. Biol. 1909, Vol. II. p. 74.Google Scholar
Dopter, Ch. (1911). Bull. Inst. Past. Vol. IX. p. 840.Google Scholar
Dopter, Ch. and Koch, Raymond. (VII. 1908). Sur la coagulation du méningocoque et du gonocoque. Compt. rend. Soc. Biol. 1908, Vol. II. p. 215.Google Scholar
Dopter, Ch. and Koch, Raymond. (X. 1908). Sur les précipitines du méningocoque et du gonocoque. Compt. rend. Soc. Biol. 1908, Vol. II. p. 285.Google Scholar
Eberle, Julius (1908). Ueber Agglutination der Meningokokken. Archiv f. Hyg. Vol. LXIV. p. 171.Google Scholar
Elsler, W. J. and Huntoon, Frank M. (1909). Studies on Meningitis. Journ. of Med. Research, Vol. XX. (N. S. Vol. XV.) p. 373.Google Scholar
Gurd, F. B. (1908). A contribution to the bacteriology of the female genital tract with special reference to the detection of the Gonococcus. Journ. of Med. Research, Vol. XVIII. p. 291.Google Scholar
Houston, T. and Rankin, J. C. (1907). The opsonic and agglutinative action of blood serum in Cerebro-spinal fever. Brit. Med. Journ. Vol. II. p. 421.Google Scholar
Krumbein, and Schatiloff, P. (1908). Untersuchungen über das Meningokokken- serum. Deutsche med. Wochenschr. 1908, p. 1002.Google Scholar
Kutscher, K. H. (1906). Ueber Untersuchungen der Nasenrachenhohle Gesunder Menschen auf Meningokokken. Deutsche med. Wochenschr. 1906, p. 1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutscher, K. H. (1906). Ueber Untersuchungen der Nasenrachenhohle Gesunder Menschen auf Meningokokken. Deutsche med. Wochenschr. 1906, p. 1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutscher, K. H. (1906). Ein Beitrag zur Agglutination der Meningokokken. Deutsche med. Wochenschr. 1906, p. 1849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberknecht, A. (1908). Ueber Pseudo-meningokokken aus den Rachen gesunder Schulkinder. Archiv f. Hyg. u. Infectionskrankh. Vol. LXVIII. p. 142.Google Scholar
Lingelshem, v.,, W. (1906). Die bakteriologischen Arbeiten der Königl. Hygienischen Station zu Beuthen in O.-Schl. während der Genickstarre-epidemie im Winter 1904–5. Klin. Jahrb. Vol. XV. p. 373.Google Scholar
Martin, W.. Blair, M. (1910). The isolation of the Gonococcus and its differentiation from allied organisms. Journ. of Path. and Bact. Vol. XV. p. 76.Google Scholar
Thalmann, (1900). Züchtung der Gonokokken auf einfachen Nährboden. Centralbl. f. Bakt. Abt. I, Orig. Vol. XXVII. p. 828.Google Scholar
Thalmann, (1902). Zur Biologie der Gonokokken. Centralbl. f. Bakt. Abt. I, Orig. Vol. XXXI. p. 678.Google Scholar
Torrey, J. C. (1907). Agglutinins and Precipitins in Anti-gonococcic serum. Journ. Med. Research, Vol. XVI. p. 329.Google Scholar
Trautmann, W.. and Fromme, W. (1908). Beiträge zur Epidemiologie und Bakteriologie der epidemischen Genickstarre. Münch. med. Wochenschr. 1908, p. 791.Google Scholar
Vannod, Th. (1906). Ueber Agglutinine und spezifische Immunkörper in Gonokokkenserum. Deutsche med. Wochenschr. 1906, p. 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watabiki, T. (1910). A study of complement fixation in gonorrhoea infection. Journ. of Infect. Dis. Vol. VII. 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wollstein, M. (1907). Biological relationships of Diplococcus intracellularis and Gonococcus. Journ. Exper. Med. Vol. IX. p. 588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar