Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T07:30:09.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of Tests on Slaughterhouse Cattle for Estimating Relative Potencies of Tuberculins and for the Calculation of Discrimination Tests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

A. B. Paterson ,
P. Stuart ,
I. W. Lesslie  and
F. B. Leech
A. B. Paterson
Affiliation:
Central Veterinary Laboratory, Weybridge
P. Stuart
Affiliation:
Central Veterinary Laboratory, Weybridge
I. W. Lesslie
Affiliation:
Central Veterinary Laboratory, Weybridge
F. B. Leech
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden
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 potency of PPD tuberculin made from AN 5, a bovine strain, was high when WR medium was used and low when BAI medium was used. PPD tuberculin made from strains of the human type grown on BAI medium was intermediate in potency between the two bovine PPDs.

2. The standard deviation of the difference between responses to duplicate injections of human type PPD at 2·0 mg./ml. concentration was 2·59 in the Islington and 1·84 in the Weybridge experiment on tuberculous animals, and 1·11 at Islington and 1·13 at Weybridge on tubercle-free animals. Differences greater than 1·5 mm. were relatively infrequent on tubercle-free animals.

3. The Elliott ‘401’ electronic computer at Rothamsted was used to calculate discriminant functions and to estimate the discriminating power of different ‘tests’, each test involving an injection of a mammalian and an injection of avian tuberculin.

4. There were some differences between the mammalian preparations in their power to discriminate between tuberculous and tubercle-free animals, but these differences were closely allied to differences in potency. It seems probable that if concentrations of equivalent potency were used, there would be little if any difference in their discriminating power.

5. The contribution of avian tuberculin to the discrimination test was demonstrated; the greatest contribution came from a concentration of 0·25 mg./ml. used in the Islington experiment. The Weybridge results were quite consistent with the assumption that a maximum contribution is made by a concentration less than 0·5 mg./ml.

6. Methods for deducing rules for the interpretation of comparative tuberculin tests, using a mammalian and an avian tuberculin are illustrated and results given for the type of population sampled in these experiments.

7. The principle on which this rule might be modified where the population is believed to be free of infection, is outlined and discussed.

We should like to acknowledge the advice and constructive criticisms during the planning of the experiments of Dr A. W. Stableforth and Dr H. H. Green of Weybridge, and also the care with which Miss C. N. Hebert carried out the preliminary arrangement of the large quantity of data. Thanks are also due to the staff of the Islington abattoir for their willing co-operation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , March 1958 , pp. 1 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1958

References

REFERENCES

Buxton, J. B. & Glover, R. E. (1939). A.R.C. Rep. Series, no. 4. Tuberculin test in cattle. London, H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Dorset, M. (1934). J. Amer. vet. med. Ass. 84, 439.Google Scholar
Feldman, W. H. & Moses, H. E. (1942). Amer. J. vet. Res. 3, 3.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1949). Biometrics, 5, 300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. & Yates, F. (1953). Statistical tables for biological, agricultural and medical research, 4th ed.London: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Green, H. H. (1946). Vet. J. 102, 267.Google Scholar
Kerr, W. R., Lamont, M. G. & McGirr, J. L. (1946). Vet. Rec. 58, 451.Google Scholar
M.A.F. Statement (1942). Vet. Rec. 54, 191.Google Scholar
M.A.F. Statement (1947). Vet. Rec. 59, 261.Google Scholar
McTaggart, H. S. (1943). Report to A.R.C. on ad hoc research (unpublished).Google Scholar
Paterson, A. B. (1948). J. comp. Path. 58, 302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paterson, A. B. & Hebert, C. N. (1955). Vet. Rec. 67, 1143.Google Scholar
Paterson, A. B. & Leech, F. B. (1954). Amer. Rev. Tuberc. 69, 806.Google Scholar
Seibert, F. B. (1949). Amer. Rev. Tuberc. 59, 86.Google Scholar
Watson, E. A. (1935). Canad. publ. Hlth. J. 26, 268.Google Scholar
Yates, F. & Healy, M.J.R. (1951). Nature, Lond., 168, 1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar