Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:45:03.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Researches on the Intestinal Protozoa of Monkeys and Man

V. The Endolimax of Macaques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Clifford Dobell
Clifford Dobell
Affiliation:
National Institute for Medical Research, London, N.W.3.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Amoebae of the genus Endolimax have been found naturally inhabiting the large intestine of 3 species of Macacus (M. sinicus [= radiatus], M. rhesus [= mulatto], M. nemestrinus).

In all these hosts the amoebae are morphologically and culturally identical, at all stages of development, and are indistinguishable by any structural or cultural character from Endolimax nana of Man—with which they have been carefully compared. The several forms have been studied in “pure” culture (i.e., free from all other protozoa, but accompanied by bacteria suitable for their growth).

The Endolimax of M. sinicus, isolated in “pure” culture, has been experimentally transmitted to an uninfected man by the natural route (cysts per os): and in this human subject it has produced an infection indistinguishable from a natural one with E. nana. The induced infection has now persisted unchanged for close on 8 years.

From the experimentally infected man the amoeba has been artificially transmitted to an uninfected M. rhesus, in which it gave rise to an infection—likewise indistinguishable from a natural simian infection—which persisted for the rest of the monkey's life (2½ years).

Some further information is given about the distribution, cultivation, emetine-resistance, and other peculiarities of the forms of Endolimax found in Macaques and Man; and the findings of other workers with similar organisms are briefly considered. From all the evidence available it is concluded that E. nana naturally lives not only in Man but also in at least 3 different species of Macacus, and probably in monkeys of this genus generally. As yet there is no evidence that more than one species of Endolimax inhabits any of these hosts.

Infections with E. nana, whether in Man or Macaques, have usually been found to endure indefinitely; but a case (M. rhesus) has been observed in which the infection appears to have died out spontaneously after persisting for a known period of over 6 years.

Attempts to infect kittens with E. nana have all been unsuccessful hitherto, but there is evidence (from the work of others) that this amoeba may inhabit some other domestic mammals. Its host-distribution in nature needs further investigation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , December 1933 , pp. 436 - 467
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1933

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

Anderson, H. H. and Koch, D. A. (1931). Iodochloroxyquinoline (Vioform, N.N.R.) as an amebacide in Macaques. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. and Med. 28, 838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacon, F. (1620). Novum Organum, ed. Fowler, T.. 8°. Oxford, 1889.Google Scholar
Bishop, A. (1929). Experiments on the action of emetine in cultures of Entamoeba coli. Parasitology, 21, 481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brug, S. L. (1921). Endolimax Kueneni n.sp., parasitic in the intestinal tract of the monkey Macacus cynomolgus. Parasitology, 12, 378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brug, S. L. (1923). Protozoologische waarnemingen. Geneesk. Tijdschr. v. Nederl.-Indie, 63, 620.Google Scholar
Chiang, S. F. (1925). The rat as a possible carrier of the dysentery amoeba. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 11, 239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dale, H. H. and Dobell, C. (1917). Experiments on the therapeutics of amoebic dysentery. J. Pharmacol. and Exp. Therap. 10, 399.Google Scholar
Deschiens, R. (1927). Sur les protozoaires intestinaux des singes. Bull. Soc. Path. Exot. 20, 19.Google Scholar
Dobell, C. (1919). The Amoebae living in Man: a Zoological Monograph. 8°. London.Google Scholar
Deschiens, R. (1927). Further observations and experiments on the cultivation of Entamoeba histolytica from cysts. Parasitology, 19, 288.Google Scholar
Deschiens, R. (1928). Researches. on the intestinal Protozoa of Monkeys and Man.—I. General introduction, and II. Description of the whole life-history of Entamoeba histolytica in cultures. Parasitology, 20, 357.Google Scholar
Deschiens, R. with Bishop, A. (1929). Researches. on the intestinal Protozoa of Monkeys and Man.—I. General introduction, and III. The action of emetine on natural amoebic infections in macaques. Parasitology, 21, 446.Google Scholar
Deschiens, R. (1931). Idem. TV. An experimental study of the histolytica-like species of Entamoeba living naturally in macaques. Parasitology, 23, 1.Google Scholar
Deschiens, R. (1932). Antony van Leeuwenhoek and his “little animals” [etc.]. 4°. London.Google Scholar
Dobell, C., Gettings, H. S., Jepps, M. W., and Stephens, J. B. (1918). A study of 1300 convalescent cases of dysentery from home hospitals. Medical Research Committee, Special Report Series No. 15. (London: H.M. Stationery Office.)Google Scholar
Dobell, C. and Laidlaw, P. P. (1926). The action of ipecacuanha alkaloids on Entamoeba histolytica and some other entozoic amoebae in culture. Parasitology, 18, 206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobell, C. and Laidlaw, P. P. (1926 a). On the cultivation of Entamoeba histolytica and some other entozoic amoebae. Parasitology, 18, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobell, C. and O'Connor, F. W. (1921). The Intestinal Protozoa of Man. 8°. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faust, E. C. (1930). Experiments on the effect of di-hydranol on intestinal protozoa of man and laboratory mammals. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol, and Med. 27, 905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fbye, W. W. and Meleney, H. E. (1932). Investigations of Endamoeba histolytica and other intestinal protozoa in Tennessee: IV. A study of flies, rats, mice and some domestic animals as possible carriers of the intestinal protozoa of man in a rural community. Amer. J. Hyg. 16, 729.Google Scholar
Hegneb, R. (1928). The evolutionary significance of the protozoan parasites of monkeys and man. Quart. Rev. Biol. 3, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegneb, R. (1929). Endolimax amoebae in the vagina of Rhesus monkeys. J. Parasitol. 16, 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegneb, R. and Chte, H. J. (1930). A comparative study of the intestinal protozoa of wild monkeys and man. Amer. J. Hyg. 12, 62.Google Scholar
Kessel, J. F. (1928). Intestinal protozoa of monkeys. Univ. California Publ. Zool. 31, 275.Google Scholar
Kessel, J. F. (1928 a). Intestinal protozoa of the domestic pig. Amer. J. Trop. Med. 8, 481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kbediet, G. J. (1921). Over het voorkomen van Protozoencysten en ontwikkelingsvormen van Coccidien in den darm van mensch en enkele dieren. Dissertation, Univ. Leiden. (8°, pp. 1–62. Amsterdam.)Google Scholar
Laidlaw, P. P., Dobell, C., and Bishop, A. (1928). Further experiments on the action of emetine in cultures of Entamoeba histolytica. Parasitology, 20, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Report of the Medical Research Council for the year 1924–1925. London: H.M. Stationery Office. 1925. [Published 22 Jan. 1926.] pp. 31, 32.Google Scholar
Report of the Medical Research Council for the year for 1925–1926. London: H.M. Stationery Office. 1926. [Published Feb. 1927.] pp. 35, 36.Google Scholar
Stabler, R. M. (1932). On the presence of peripheral chromatin in Endolimax nana. J. Parasitol. 18, 278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar