Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T14:46:48.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The pleuropneumonia-like organisms: further comparative studies and a descriptive account of recently discovered types

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Emmy Klieneberger
Emmy Klieneberger
Affiliation:
From the Bacteriological Department, Lister Institute, 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 four different L1 strains in the writer's possession isolated between 1933 and 1936 have been maintained for a further period without reverting to Streptobacillus moniliformis. The supposition that the L1 is a pleuro-pneumonia-like organism and lives in symbiosis with a bacterium in cultures of S. moniliformis is still maintained by the writer and the reasons for it are given.

2. From a culture isolated from lesions in guinea-pigs and pathogenic for these animals called the “guinea-pig strain”, an L1-like organism of the pleuropneumonia group has been separated, but not yet been maintained for a long enough period to ensure irreversibility. The morphology of the “guinea-pig strain” shows that it is closely related to S. moniliformis though it can be distinguished from the latter by its cultural and pathogenic properties. The morphology of two other cultures, viz. a saprophytic coccus from the skin of a pig and the organism known as Fusobacterium nucleatum, have been described as possibly representing similar symbiotic associations of bacteria and pleuropneumonia-like organisms.

3. Cultural and serological differences between the L4 causing arthritis, swollen glands and abscesses in rats, and the two other pleuropneumonia-like organisms from rats, L1 and L3, are recorded. It has been shown that the organisms occurring in the brains of mice, L5 and L6, and in the joint of a mouse, “M55”, are of aetiological significance for the condition in which they occur. At the same time they differ in their colony type, morphology and serological features.

4. Morphological and serological studies of the saprophytic organisms of the pleuropneumonia group isolated by Laidlaw & Elford and Seiffert from water and soil show that Seiffert's organisms are closely related to Laidlaw & Elford's type “A”. In agreement with Laidlaw & Elford it was found that their type “B” is slightly different from “A” serologically, while “C” is distinct from “A” and “B” and may be regarded as a special type.

These saprophytic types are not antigenically related to the parasitic varieties.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , March 1940 , pp. 204 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1940

References

REFERENCES

Collier, W. A. (1939). J. Path. Bact. 48, 579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daubney, R. (1936). J. comp. Path. 48, 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, M. H. & Hobby, G. (1939 a). Abstr. of Proc. Third Int. Congr. Microbiol., N.Y., p. 21.Google Scholar
Dawson, M. H. & Hobby, G. (1939 b). Trans. Ass. Amer. Phys. 54, 329.Google Scholar
Dienes, L. (1938). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 39, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dienes, L. (1939 a). J. infect. Dis. 65, 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dienes, L. (1939 b). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 42, 636.Google Scholar
Farrell, E., Lordi, G. H. & Vogel, J. (1939). Arch, intern. Med. 64, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Findlay, G. M., klieneberger, E., MacCallum, F. O. & Mackenzie, R. D. (1938). Lancet, 2, 1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Findlay, G. M., klieneberger, E., MacCallum, F. O. & Mackenzie, R. D. (1939). Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg. 33, 6.Google Scholar
Findlay, G. M., Mackenzie, R. D., MacCallum, F. O. & Klieneberger, E. (1939). Lancet, 2, 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klieneberger, E. (1934). J. Path. Bact. 39, 409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klieneberger, E. (1935). J. Path. Bact. 40, 93.Google Scholar
Klieneberger, E. (1936). J. Path. Bact. 42, 587.Google Scholar
Klieneberger, E. (1938). J. Hyg., Camb., 38, 458.Google Scholar
Klieneberger, E. (1939 a). J. Hyg., Camb., 39, 260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klieneberger, E. (1939 b). J. Path. Bact. 49, 451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klieneberger, E. (1939 c). Abstr. of Proc. Third Int. Congr. Microbiol., N.Y., p. 20.Google Scholar
Klieneberger, E. & Steabben, D. B. (1937). J. Hyg., Camb., 37, 143.Google Scholar
Laidlaw, P. P. & Elford, W. J. (1936). Proc. ray. Soc. B, 120, 292.Google Scholar
Ledingham, J. C. G. (1933). J. Path. Bact. 37, 393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinthal, W. & Fernbach, H. (1922). Z. Hyg. InfektKr. 96, 456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mettam, R. W. M. & Ford, J. (1939). J. comp. Path. 52, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, J. (1927). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 48, 308.Google Scholar
Ørskov, J. (1938). Zbl. Bakt. I. Abt. Orig. 141, 230.Google Scholar
Rhodes, A. J. & van Rooyen, C. E. (1939). J. Path. Bact. 49, 577.Google Scholar
Sabin, A. B. (1938). Science, 88, 575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabin, A. B. (1939 a). Science, 89, 228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabin, A. B. (1939 b). Science, 90, 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seastone, C. V. (1939). J. exp. Med. 70, 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seiffert, G. (1937 a). Zbl. Bakt. I. Abt. Orig. 139, 337.Google Scholar
Seiffert, G. (1937 b). Zbl. Bakt. I. 140, Beiheft, 168.Google Scholar
Shoetensack, H. M. (1934). Kitasato Arch. 11, 277.Google Scholar
Shoetensack, H. M. (1936 a). Kitasato Arch. 13, 145.Google Scholar
Shoetensack, H. M. (1936 b). Kitasato Arch. 13, 269.Google Scholar
Woglom, W. H. & Warren, J. (1938 a). Science, 87, 370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woglom, W. H. & Warren, J. (1938 b). J. exp. Med. 68, 513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woglom, W. H. & Warren, J. (1939). J. Hyg., Camb., 39, 266.Google Scholar