Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-05T06:30:46.564Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The serological relationship between Brucella spp., Yersinia enterocolitica serotype IX and Salmonella serotypes of Kauffmann-White group N

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

M. J. Corbel
M. J. Corbel
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Central Veterinary Laboratory, Weybridge, Surrey
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

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 serological relationship between Brucella spp., Yersinia enterocolitica IX, and the group N salmonella serotypes S. godesberg, S. landau, S. morehead, S. neusdorf, S. soerenga and S. urbana was examined using agglutination, antiglobulin, complement fixation, immunodiffusion and fluorescent antibody methods.

Antisera to the group N salmonella serotypes all reacted to significant titres in agglutination and complement fixation, but not antiglobulin or immunodiffusion tests with smooth brucella antigens. These antisera also reacted in agglutination, but not antiglobulin, tests with Y. enterocolitica IX. They did not react significantly in any tests with rough brucella antigens.

Conversely, antisera to smooth Brucella spp. agglutinated group N salmonellas to low titre and Y. enterocolitica IX to titres similar to those given against the homologous strain. Antiserum to Y. enterocolitica IX on the other hand reacted with smooth brucella antigens to high titre in agglutination, complement fixation and antiglobulin tests, and with the group N salmonella antigens to substantial titres in agglutination tests.

In direct fluorescent antibody tests, smooth Brucella strains and Y. enterocolitica IX reacted strongly with FITC-labelled antibody to Br. abortus whereas the group N salmonella strains reacted weakly.

In tests with monospecific antisera to the A and M determinants of Br. abortus and Br. melitensis respectively, Y. enterocolitica IX reacted only with the antiserum to the A determinant whereas group N salmonellas reacted to low titre with both A and M antisera.

The results of cross-absorption tests confirmed this relationship and suggested that the O30 antigens of group N salmonella serotypes contained antigenic determinants similar to, but not identical with, the antigenic structure shared by smooth Brucella spp. and Y. enterocolitica IX.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 75 , Issue 1 , August 1975 , pp. 151 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

References

REFERENCES

Ahvonen, P., Jansson, E. & Aho, K. (1969). Marked cross-agglutination between Brucella and a sub-type of Yersinia enterocolitica. Acta pathologica et microbiologica scandinavica 75, 291.Google Scholar
Akkermans, J. P. W. M. & Hill, W. K. W. (1971). Yersinia enterocolitica serotype 9 infectie als storend element bij de serologische diagnostiek van brucella-infecties bij het varken. Tijdschrift voor Diergeneeskunde 96, 1654.Google Scholar
Alton, G. G. & Jones, L. M. (1967). Laboratory techniques in brucellosis. WHO Monograph Series No. 55.Google Scholar
Biberstein, E. L. & McGowan, B. (1958). Epididymitis in rams. Studies on laboratory diagnosis. Cornell Veterinarian 48, 31.Google ScholarPubMed
Carmichael, L. E. & Bruner, D. W. (1968). Characteristics of a newly-recognized species of Brucella responsible for infectious canine abortions. Cornell Veterinarian 58, 579.Google Scholar
Cioglia, L. (1948). Agglutinazione della S. urbana nelle brucellosi e suo valore diagnostico. Bolletina della Societa Italiana di Biologia sperimentale 24, 1117.Google Scholar
Cioglia, L. (1950 a). Antigeni communi a brucelle e salmonelle. Giornale di Batteriologia e Immunologia 42, 81.Google Scholar
Cioglia, L. (1950 b). Sulla diagnosi sierologica nelle brucellosi. Giornale di Batteriologia e Immunologia 42, 91.Google Scholar
Cioglia, L. (1950 c). Sulla constituzione antigene della brucelle melitensis e Bang. Giornale di Batteriologia e Immunologia 42, 346.Google Scholar
Corbel, M. J. (1973 a). The nature of the antibody response to Yersinia enterocolitica serotype IX in cattle. Journal of Hygiene 71, 309.Google Scholar
Corbel, M. J. (1973 b). The direct fluorescent antibody test for detection of Brucella abortus in bovine abortion material. Journal of Hygiene 71, 123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corbel, M. J. (1973 c). Immunological properties of an antigen fromYersinia enterocolitica serotype 9 cross-reacting with Brucella species agglutinogens. In Contributions to Microbiology and Immunology 2, Yersinia, Pasteurella and Francisella, pp. 150–6.Google Scholar
Corbel, M. J. & Cullen, G. A. (1970). Differentiation of the serological response to Yersinia enterocolitica serotype IX and Brucella abortus in cattle. Journal of Hygiene 68, 519.Google Scholar
Corbel, M. J. & Day, C. A. (1973 a). Assessment of fluorescent antibody absorption procedures for differentiation of the serological response to Yersinia enterocolitica serotype IX and Brucella abortus in cattle. British Veterinary Journal 129, lxvii.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corbel, M. J. & Day, C. A. (1973 b). Assessment of indirect haemagglutination procedures for the serological diagnosis of bovine brucellosis. British Veterinary Journal 129, 480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbel, M. J. & Phillip, J. I. H. (1972). The relationship of Brucella abortus agglutinogenic antigens to the receptor sites for Tbilisi phage. Research in Veterinary Science 13, 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiazR., L. R., L., acalle, R., Medrano, M. P. & Leong, D. (1970). Immunobiological activities of the endotoxin from Yersinia enterocolitica strain M.Y. 79. Proceedings of the Vth International Congress on Infectious Diseases, Vienna; Bacteria 2, 11.Google Scholar
Feeley, J. C. (1969). Somatic O antigen relationship of Brucella and Vibrio cholerae. Journal of Bacteriology 99, 645.Google Scholar
Francis, E. & Evans, A. C. (1926). Agglutination, cross-agglutination and agglutinin absorption in tularaemia. Public Health Reports, Washington 41, 1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fribourg-Blanc, A. (1971). Étude par immunofluorescence des antigènes somatiques de Yersinia enterocolitica. Annales Biologiques et Cliniques 29, 263.Google Scholar
Hurvell, B. (1973). Serological cross-reactions between different Brucella species and Yersinia enterocolitica. An immunological and immunochemical study. Thesis, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Hurvell, B., Ahvonen, P. & Thal, E. (1971). Serological cross-reactions between different brucella species and Yersinia enterocolitica. Acta veterinaria scandinavica 12, 86.Google Scholar
Kunin, C. M. (1963). Separation, characterization and biological significance of a common antigen in Enterobacteriaceae. Journal of Experimental Medicine 115, 565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Minor, L., Chalon, A. M. & Veron, M. (1972). Recherches sur la presénce de l'antigène commun des ‘Enterobacteriaceae’ (Antigène Kunin) chez les ‘Yersinia’, ‘Levinea’, ‘Aeromonas’ et ‘Vibrio’. Annales de l'institut Pasteur 123, 761.Google Scholar
Parnas, J., Mierzejewski, T., Feltynowski, A. & Lazuga, K. (1955). Comparative studies on properties of bacteria: Pasteurella tularemiae, Pasteurella multocida, Pasteurella rodentium and Brucella brucei. Annals of the Maria Curie-Sklodowska University 10, 207. Cited by Olitski, A. In Immunological Methods in Brucellosis Research: Part I. In vitro procedures. Basel and New York: S. Karger.Google Scholar
Pop, A., Cerbu, A., Pop, A. & Dra˘ghici, D. (1972). Parentés antigéniques entre les espèces classiques de Brucella et de l'espèce Yersinia enterocolitica sérotype 9. I. Agglutinogènes et récepteurs phagique. Archives roumaines de Pathologie experimentale et de Microbiologie 31, 45.Google Scholar
Ribi, E., Milner, K. C. & Perrine, T. D. (1959). Endotoxic and antigenic fractions from the cell wall of Salmonella enteritidis. Methods for separation and some biologic activities. Journal of Immunology 82, 75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rusu, V., Stanescu, C., Muscan, A., L˘z˘roae, D. & Popescu, M. (1970). Infection humaine a Yersinia enterocolitica sérotype 9. Implications épidémiologiques. Archives roumaines de Pathologie experimentale et de Microbiologie 29, 507.Google Scholar
Shklair, I. L. & Stafseth, H. J. (1954). A study of serological cross-reactions between the Brucella and certain salmonellae. I. The antigen common to Brucella and Salmonella pullorum. Michigan State College Veterinarian 14, 130.Google Scholar
Simmons, D. A. R., Lüderitz, O. & Westphal, O. (1965). The immunochemistry of Salmonella chemotype VI O-antigen. The structure of oligosaccharides from Salmonella group N (O 30) lipopolysaccharides. Biochemical Journal 97, 815.Google Scholar
Starr, L. E. & Snider, G. E. (1934). Serologic relationship of Brucella and Pasteurella. Journal of Infectious Diseases 55, 384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, O., Lüderitz, O. & Bister, F. (1952). Über die Extraktion von Bakterien mit Phenol/Wasser. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung 7B, 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, D. H. & Chow, C. H. (1937). Group agglutinins of Brucella abortus and Vibrio cholerae. Chinese Medical Journal 52, 591.Google Scholar
Wundt, W. (1959). Zur Frage der Antigengemeinschaften zwischen Brucellen und Bakterien anderer Gattungen. Zeitschrift für Hygiene 145, 556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar