Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-qzllc Total loading time: 0.379 Render date: 2022-07-05T21:38:16.061Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Sylvatic plague studies. The vector efficiency of nine species of fleas compared with Xenopsylla cheopis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Albert Lawrence Burroughs
Affiliation:
From the George Williams Hooper Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, California
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Extract

HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

All fleas used in this study were collected in the field and except for Pulex irritans were cultured in the laboratory. The ten species studied were Xenopsylla cheopis, Nosopsyllus fasciatus, Orchopeas sexdentatus sexdentatus, Opisodasys-nesiotus, Megabothris abantis, Malaraeus telchinum, Diamanus montanus, Echidnophaga gallinacea, Pulex irritans and Oropsylla idahoensis.

All fleas transmitted in individual feeding studies with the exception of the latter two species, which transmitted en masse. Echidnophaga gallinacea could not be fed periodically as were the other fleas because of its tick-like feeding habits. Consequently, the vector efficiency obtained for this species is not strictly comparable to that found for the other species.

The transmission data obtained from individual flea feeding studies was analysed statistically to estimate the expected number of transmissions per flea of each species. These values are obtained as intervals which have a 90% probability of containing the true value. The true vector efficiency of Xenopsylla cheopis was found to be 0·660 ± 0·234 (expected transmissions per flea), that of Nosopsyllus fasciatus to be 0·213 ± 0·157, and that of Orchopeas sexdentatus sexdentatus to be 0·170 ± 0·138. Opisodasys nesiotus, Megabothris abantis, Malaraeus telchinum and Diamanus montanus transmitted very inefficiently.

Experimental evidence was obtained that different strains of a species of flea may differ markedly in their biological vector capacity. In contrast to results obtained in this study, Wheeler & Douglas found Diamanus montanus to be an exceptionally good vector; in their studies it proved to be an even more efficient vector than Xenopsylla cheopis. The strain of Diamanus montanus employed by them came from an area widely separated from that in which the strain used in the present studies was originally collected.

Since many blocked fleas did not transmit it is probable that the experimentally determined vector efficiencies are lower than they would be in nature, where the blocked flea has constant access to a host and hence greater opportunity to feed.

Attempts to determine the number of organisms regurgitated by a blocked flea during its attempt to feed did not prove entirely satisfactory, but gave an indication that the number may be at times from 11,000 to 24,000 organisms. The technique consisted of feeding a blocked flea on the shaved abdomen of a mouse (later on the ear), then immediately doing a biopsy on the area around and including the bite wound. This biopsy material was then finely ground and plated on a sensitive bacteriological medium. Some mice upon which biopsies were performed nevertheless contracted plague and died. This must lead to the conclusion that an infective flea may deposit organisms directly into the capillaries and that the primary stage of infection resulting from a flea bite is frequently bacteraemia.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1947

References

Bacot, A. W. (1915). Further notes on the mechanism of the transmission of plague by fleas. J. Hyg., Camb., Plague Supplement 4, 774–6.Google Scholar
Bacot, A. W. & Martin, C. J. (1914). Observations on the mechanism of the transmission of plague by fleas. J. Hyg., Camb., Plague Supplement 3, 423–39.Google Scholar
Blanc, G. & Baltazard, M. (1942). On the mechanism of the transmission of plague by Xenopsylla cheopis. C.R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 136, 646–7.Google Scholar
St John, Brooks R. (1917). The influence of saturation deficiency and of temperature on the course of epidemic plague. J. Hyg., Camb., Plague Supplement 5, 881–99.Google Scholar
Burroughs, A. L. (1944). The flea Malaraeus telchinum a vector of P. pestis. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol., N.Y., 55, 1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bytchov, V. A. (1935). On the role of fleas in the conservation and propagation of plague bacilli (Assistants dissertation). Parasites, transmetteurs, animaux vénimeux. Recueil des travaux dédié aux 25meanniversaire scientifique du Professor Eugéne Pavlosky, Moscou, pp. 89126. French summary, pp. 126–8.Google Scholar
Clemow, F. G. (1900). Remarks on plague in the lower animals. Brit. Med. J. 1, 1141–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de la Barrera, J. M. (1939). Contribucion al conocimiento de la peste selvatica en la Argentina; caracteres de brote de Mendoza en 1937. Rev. d. Inst. bact. 8, 431–54.Google Scholar
Douglas, J. R. & Wheeler, C. M. (1941). Sylvatic plague studies. I. A convenient individual mouse jar. J. Infect. Dis. 69, 2931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, J. R. & Wheeler, C. M. (1943). Sylvatic plague studies. II. The fate of Pasteurella pestis in the flea. J. Infect. Dis. 72, 1830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskey, C. R. (1938). Fleas as vectors of plague. Amer. J. Publ. Hlth, 28, 1305–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eskey, C. R. & Haas, V. H. (1940). Plague in the western part of the United States. Bull. U.S. Publ. Hlth Serv. no. 254, pp. 183.Google Scholar
Evseeva, V. E. & Firsov, I. P. (1932). The suslik fleas as reservoirs of plague bacilli during the winter. Vestn. mikr. epidemiol. parazitol. 11, pp. 281–3. English summary, p. 283.Google Scholar
Fourie, L. (1938). The endemic focus of plague. S. Afr. Med. J. 12, 352–9. Referred to by Meyer (1942).Google Scholar
Gauthier, J. C. & Raybaud, A. (1902). Sur le rôle des parasites du rat dans la transmission de la peste. C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 54, 1947.Google Scholar
Gauthier, J. C. & Raybaud, A. (1903). Recherches expérimentales sur le rôle des parasites du rat dans la transmission de la peste. Rev. Hyg. Police Sanit. 25, 426–38.Google Scholar
George, P. V. & Webster, W. J. (1934). Plague inquiry in the Cumbum Valley, South India. Indian J. Med. Res. 22, 77103.Google Scholar
Girard, G. (1943). Les ectoparasites de l'homme dans l'epidémiologie de la peste. Bull. Soc. Path. exot. 36, nos. 1–2, pp. 441.Google Scholar
Golov, D. A. & Ioff, I. G. (1925). On the question of the role of the fleas of spermophiles in the epidemiology of plague. Vestn. mikr. epidemiol. parazitol. 4, pp. 1948. French summary, pp. 131–7.Google Scholar
Goyle, A. N. (1927). Experiments on the transmission of plague by Xenopsylla cheopis and X. astia. Far East. Ass. Trop. Med. Trans. Seventh Congr. 2, 35–9.Google Scholar
Goyle, A. N. (1928). Experiments on the transmission of plague by fleas of the genus Xenopsylla (cheopis and astia) with a discussion on the flea species distribution in its relation to the incidence of plague. Indian J. Med. Res. 15, 837–60.Google Scholar
Hirst, L. F. (1923). On the transmission of plague by fleas of the genus Xenopsylla. Indian J. Med. Res. 10, 789820.Google Scholar
Hirst, L. F. (1925 a). Plague fleas with special reference to the Milroy Lectures. J. Hyg., Camb., 24, 116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirst, L. F. (1925 b). Researches on the parasitology of plague. Part II. The transmission of plague by the blood-sucking ectoparasites of rats with special reference to Xenopsylla astia and X. cheopis. Ceylon J. Sci., Sect. D, Med. Sci., 1, 167–99.Google Scholar
Indian Plague Commission (1906). Reports on plague investigations in India. I. Experiments upon the transmission of plague by fleas. J. Hyg., Camb., 6, 425–82.Google Scholar
Indian Plague Commission (1907). Further observations on the transmission of plague by fleas, with special reference to the fate of the plague bacillus in the body of the rat flea (P. cheopis). J. Hyg., Camb., 7, 395420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Indian Plague Commission (1908). The mechanism by means of which the flea clears itself of plague bacilli. J. Hyg., Camb., 8, 260–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Indian Plague Commisson (1908). On the seasonal prevalence of plague in India. J. Hyg., Camb., 8, Plague Number, pp. 266301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ioff, I. G. (1941). Problems in the Ecology of Fleas in Relation to their Epidemiological Importance. Ordjhonikidze Regional Anti-Plague Experiment Station, Ordjhonikidze Regional Publishing House, Pyatigorsk. Translated by Mary H. Garlin, O.S.R.D. Liaison Office, New York. 133 double-spaced typewritten pages, and 332 references.Google Scholar
Jellison, W. J. & Good, N. E. (1942). Index to the literature of Siphonaptera of North America. Bull. Nat. Inst. Hlth. no. 178, pp. 1193.Google Scholar
Jellison, W. J. & Kohls, G. M. (1936). Distribution and hosts of the human flea, Pulex irritans Linn., in Montana and other western states. Publ. Hlth Rep., Wash., 51, 842–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitasato, S. (1894). The bacillus of bubonic plague (preliminary notice). Lancet, 2, 428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagrange, E. (1926). Concerning the discovery of the plague bacillus. J. Trop. Med. 29, 299302.Google Scholar
Glen, Liston W. (1924). The Milroy Lectures, 1924. On the plague. II. The etiology of plague. Brit. Med. J. 1, 950–4.Google Scholar
McCoy, G. W. & Wherry, W. B. (1909). Subacute plague in man due to ground-squirrel infection. J. Infect. Dis. 6, 670–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martini, E. (1923). Lehrbuch der Medizinischen Entomologie, p. 140. Jena: Gustav Fischer.Google Scholar
Meyer, K. F. (1938). The role of the infected and the infective flea in the spread of sylvatic plague. V. jschr. naturf. Ges. Zürich, 83, Beiblatt no. 30, pp. 160–9, Festschrift Karl Hescheler.Google Scholar
Meyer, K. F. (1941). The ecology of plague. Medicine, 21, 143–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, K. F. (1942). The known and the unknown in plague. Amer. J. Trop. Med. 22, 936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, K. F. (1943). Plague. Med. Clin. N. Amer., New York Number, pp. 745–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, K. F. (1946). The relation of diseases in the lower animals to human welfare, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 47, 429–67. (This paper is in a symposium, pp. 351–76.)Google Scholar
Mitchell, J. A. (1927). Plague in South Africa. Publ. S. Afr. Inst. Med. Res. 3, 97–8.Google Scholar
Ogata, M. (1897). Ueber die Pestepidemie in Formosa. Zbl. Bakt. 21, 769–74.Google Scholar
Roux, M. E. (1897). II. Sur la peste bubonique. Essais de traitement par le sérum antipesteux, à propos d'une note du Dr Yersin, médecin de 2e classe des Colonies, directeur de l'lnstitut Pasteur de Nha-Trang. Bull. Acad. méd. 37, 3 série, pp. 91–9.Google Scholar
Sikes, E. K. (1931). Notes on breeding fleas, with reference to humidity and feeding. Parasitology, 23, 243–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simond, P. L. (1898). The propagation of plague. Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 12, 625–87.Google Scholar
Stewart, M. A. (1940). Present knowledge of the status of vectors of sylvatic plague in North America. Proc. 6 th Pac. Sci. Congr. 4, 433–7.Google Scholar
Thompson, A. (1903). Report on a second outbreak of plague in Sydney (1902). Notation by the Indian Plague Commission in I. Experiments upon the transmission of plague by fleas. J. Hyg., Camb., 6, 425–33 (429).Google Scholar
Thornton, E. N. (1933). Positions in regard to plague in the Union of South Africa and the mandated territory of South West Africa. Quart. Bull. Hlth Org. (L. o. N.), 2, 6490.Google Scholar
Tickhomirova, M., Sagorskaja, M. & Iljin, B. (1935). Die Nager und ihre Flöhe in Steppen-Übergangs-Landstrich der Nowo-Kasansker und Slomichensker Rayons und ihre Rolle in der Epidemiologie der Pest. Vestn. mikr. epidemiol. parazitol. 14, 231–53. German summary, pp. 253–4.Google Scholar
Tumanski, V. & Poliak, I. (1931). On the preservation of plague bacilli in fleas in Suslik nests during the inter-epizootic period. Vestn. mikr. epidemiol. parazitol 10, 325–6.Google Scholar
Verjbitski, D. T. (1908). The part played by insects in the epidemiology of plague. J. Hyg., Camb., 8, 162208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wheeler, C. M. & Douglas, J. R. (1941). Transmission studies of sylvatic plague. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol., N.Y., 47, 65–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, C. M. & Douglas, J. R. (1945). Sylvatic plague studies, V. The determination of vector efficiency. J. infect. Dis. 77, 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, C. M., Douglas, J. R. & Evans, F. C. (1941). The role of the burrowing owl and the stick-tight flea in the spread of plague. Science, 94, 560–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wherry, W. B. (1908). Plague among the ground squirrels of California. J. Infect. Dis. 5, 485506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Lien-Teh (1934). The original home of plague. Manchurian plague prevention service. Memorial Volume, 1912–32. Rep. Nat. Quarantine Serv. pp. 143–58. 2 Peking Road, Shanghai.Google Scholar
Wu, Lien-Teh & Pollitzer, R. (1932). A new survey of plague in wild rodents and pneumonic plague. Rep. Nat. Quarantine Serv. pp. 83201, Series iii, 2 Peking Road, Shanghai.Google Scholar
Yersin, A. (1894). La peste bubonique a Hong Kong. Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 8, 662–7.Google Scholar
You have Access
105
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Sylvatic plague studies. The vector efficiency of nine species of fleas compared with Xenopsylla cheopis
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Sylvatic plague studies. The vector efficiency of nine species of fleas compared with Xenopsylla cheopis
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Sylvatic plague studies. The vector efficiency of nine species of fleas compared with Xenopsylla cheopis
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *