Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:41:29.652Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The nature and specificity of Negri bodies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Hugh W. Acton  and
W. F. Harvey
Hugh W. Acton
Affiliation:
Assistant Director
W. F. Harvey
Affiliation:
Director, Pasteur Institute of India, Kasauli.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

By many observers Negri bodies have been considered to be parasitic in nature (Negri, 1903; Babes, 1907). Williams and Lowden (1906) go further and describe the life cycle of these bodies, regarding them as belonging to the Sporozoa, and give to them the name of Neuroryctes hydrophobiae. Calkins (1910), although he states that the parasitic nature of these bodies is not proven, still evidently inclines to that view. In his criticism of the work of Williams and Lowden he comes to differ from them as regards the classification of the supposed organisms. He thinks that their variable forms, the uninucleate condition, the occurrence of a state of distributed chromatin, and the budding phenomenon, are characteristic not of Sporozoa but of parasitic Rhizopods. His opinion is that the distributed chromatin masses in the Negri bodies are in all probability representative of the idiochromidia which are so characteristic of Rhizopods.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , October 1911 , pp. 255 - 272
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1911

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Babes, V. (1906). Les corpuscles de Negri et le parasite de la rage. Presse Médicale, xx.Google Scholar
Babes, V. (1907). Untersuchungen über die Negrischen Körper und ihre Beziehung zu dem Virus der Wutkrankheit. Zeitschr. f. Hygiene, lvi. 435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borrel, A. (1907). Le problème du Cancer. Bull. Inst. Pasteur, v. 497.Google Scholar
Calkins, G. N. (1910). Protozoölogy, p. 304, published by Baillièere Tindall and Cox.Google Scholar
Chubb, G. C. (1906). The growth of the oöcyte in Antedon: a morphological study in cell metabolism. Phil. Trans., B. 198, pp. 447–505, pls. 29–31.Google Scholar
Ewing, (1905). The structure of vaccine bodies in isolated cells. Journ. Med. Research, viii. (New series) 233.Google Scholar
Farmer, , Moore, and Walker, (1905). On “Plimmers bodies” and reproductive cells. Pro. Roy. Soc., B. lxxvi. 230.Google Scholar
Farmer, (1906). On the cytology of new growths. Proc. Roy. Soc, B. lxxvii. 336.Google Scholar
Flemming, (1882). Zellsubstanz, Kern und Zellteilung. Leipzig.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
França, C. (1906). Diagnostic histologique de la rage. Communic. au XVe Congrès de Lisbonne.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, R. (1904). Der Chromidialapparat lebhaft funktionirender Gewebezellen (Vorl. Mitt.). Biol. Zentralbl., xxiv.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, R. (1905). Die Chromidien der Protozoen. Arch. f. Protistenkunde v. 126.Google Scholar
Greenough, (1905). On the nature of cell inclusions in Cancer. Journ. Med. Research, viii. (New series) 137.Google Scholar
Hartmann, (1910). Ueber Chlamydozoen. Centralbl. f. Bakteriol. etc., Referate xlvii. Beiheft. p. 94.Google Scholar
Heidenhaim, (1882). Plasma und Zelle, p. 212. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Hertwig, (1902). Sitzungsber. d. Gesellsch. f. Morph. u. Physiol., xvii. 77.Google Scholar
Hertwig, (1903). Die Protozoen und die Zelltheorie. Arch. f. Protistenkunde, i. 1.Google Scholar
Luzzani, L. (1905). Zur Diagnose der Tollwuth. Zeitschr. f. Hygiene, xlix. 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macallum, (1891). Trans. Can. Instit. Toronto I. 247, ref. from Adami, J. G.The Principles of Pathology, Vol. i. p. 41, published by Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1909.Google Scholar
Montgomery, (1898). Comparative cytologioal studies with especial reference to the morphology of the nucleolus. Journ. of Morphology, xv. 2.Google Scholar
Negri, A. (1903). Beitrag zum Studium der Aetiologie der Tollwut. Zeitschr. f. Hygiene, xliii. 507.Google Scholar
Negri, A. (1909). Über die Morphologie und den Entwicklungszyklus des Parasiten der Tollwut. Zeitschr. f. Hygiene, lxiii. pp. 421–443, pls. xv.–xvii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pace, (1904). Sopra alcune formazioni eosinofile, simulanti i corpi di Negri etc. Riforma Med., Ann. xx. No. 25, ref. Baumgarten's Jahresbericht, xx. 814.Google Scholar
Poor, D. W. (1906). The infectivity of tissues at different stages of hydrophobia. Proc. New York Pathol. Soc., vi. 88.Google Scholar
Steinhaus, J. (1890). Ueber parasitäre Einschlüsse in den Pankreaszellen der Amphibien. Ziegler's Beiträge, vii 367.Google Scholar
Wheeler, W. M. (1896). The sexual phases of Myzostoma. Mittheil. a. d. Zoologischen Station zu Neapel, xii. 227, cited by Wilson (1906) q.v.Google Scholar
Williams, A. W. and Lowden, M. M. (1906). The aetiology and diagnosis of hydrophobia. Journ. Infect. Diseases, iii. 452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, E. B. (1906). The Cell in Development and Inheritance, p. 34, published by Macmillan & Co., New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar