Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T22:13:29.496Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Study of the Bacillus Mucosus Capsulatus Group

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Hilda R. Hay
Hilda R. Hay
Affiliation:
Muirhead Research Scholar in Bacteriology, Royal Infirmary, Glasgow.
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 group of organisms included in the term B. mucosus capsulatus has continued to intrigue bacteriologists for more than thirty years, mainly on account of the problems of academic interest which arise when any attempt is made to define the characters of the group as a whole or to classify its members into types. Proof that such problems still exist is to be found in current text-books in which certain discrepancies occur regarding the biochemical reactions ascribed to the various members. There is also uncertainty as to the inclusion of B. lactis aerogenes in the group (Topley and Wilson, 1929; Wilson, 1929). Much of the difficulty arose from the fact that Friedländer's bacillus, one of the first members of the group to be isolated (1883), was studied from a morphological standpoint, while Escherich who described B. lactis aerogenes in 1886 stressed its biological similarity to B. coli. A chasm was thus created between B. lactis aerogenes and Friedländer's bacillus which has not been bridged to the present day, although these organisms must always have resembled, more than they differed from, each other; e.g. Bergey (1929) classifies B. lactis aerogenes with coliform types under Bacterieae and places Friedländer's bacillus in the tribe Klebsielleae Trevisan, i.e. encapsulated Gram negative organisms encountered principally in the respiratory tract, whose fermentation reactions are not given in full. Organisms morphologically similar to Friedländer's bacillus were found to be widely distributed, and in 1896 Fricke named the group B. mucosus capsulatus. There is still little criticism to be made of his general description to the effect that the members were Gram-negative, possessed capsules, showed marked pleomorphism and did not form spores; they grew on a variety of media in a profuse slimy layer, and in gelatin stabs they did not liquefy, but showed the so-called “nail” growth; in addition to this, most of the bacteria classed under this head formed a moderate amount of indole and fermented carbohydrates in solution with production of acid and gas. In an attempt to type members of this group Perkins (1904) admitted that the current knowledge of technique had been almost exhausted in the effort to separate one member from another, but on the basis of certain biochemical differences he was able to distinguish three classes, of which the first was the largest:

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , April 1932 , pp. 240 - 257
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1932

References

REFERENCES

Bamforth, J. (1928). J. Hyg. 27, 343.Google Scholar
Bardsley, D. A. (1926). J. Hyg. 25, 11.Google Scholar
Bergey, D. H. (1929). Manual of Determinative Bacteriology. London.Google Scholar
Browning, C. H., Gilmour, W. and Mackie, T. J. (1913). J. Path. Bact. 18, 146.Google Scholar
Cruickshank, J. and Cruickshank, R. (1931). System of Bacteriology (Medical Research Council). London, 8, 334.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, J. G. (1914). J. Infect. Dis. 15, 268.Google Scholar
Ford, W. W. (1927). Text-book of Bacteriology. Philadelphia and London.Google Scholar
Fricke, C. (1896). Quoted by Perkins, J. Infect. Dis. 1, 241.Google Scholar
Hicks, E. P. (1927). J. Hyg. 26, 357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julianelle, L. A. (1926). J. Exp. Med. 44, 113, 683, 735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, A. I. (1911). J. Med. Research, 25, 117.Google Scholar
Koser, S. A. (1923). J. Bact. 8, 493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koser, S. A. (1924). J. Bact. 9, 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacConkey, A. (1905). J. Hyg. 5, 333.Google Scholar
MacConkey, A. (1909). J. Hyg. 9, 86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, T. J. (1913). J. Path. Bact. 13, 137.Google Scholar
Muir, R. and Ritchie, J. (1927). Manual of Bacteriology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O'Meara, R. A. Q. (1931). J. Path. Bact. 34, 401.Google Scholar
Perkins, R. G. (1904). J. Infect. Dis. 1, 241.Google Scholar
Perkins, R. G. (1907). J. Infect. Dis. 4, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, J. S. (1926). J. Infect. Dis. 39, 209.Google Scholar
Small, J. C. and Julianelle, L. A. (1923). J. Infect. Dis. 32, 456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topley, W. W. C. and Wilson, G. S. (1929). The Principles of Bacteriology and Immunity. London, 1, 413.Google Scholar
Wilson, W. J. (1929). A System of Bacteriology (Medical Research Council). London, 4, 254.Google Scholar