On the identity of the toxins produced by serologically different strains of Bacillus diphtheriæ / by Percival Hartley.

  • Percival Horton-Smith Hartley
Date:
[1923?]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: On the identity of the toxins produced by serologically different strains of Bacillus diphtheriæ / by Percival Hartley. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    4/4 (page 4)
    0-006 c.cm., 0-007 c.cm., and 0-009 c.cm. respectively. These three strains were also exceptional in so far as they all grew readily as surface films, and not throughout the medium, and they all grew very rapidly. It was possible to compare them under similar experimental conditions with strain Park Williams No. 8. the behaviour of which on the medium used was well known. This strain produces a complete film in 20 to 24 hours, but under the same conditions strains “ Swindon,” “ Phillips,” and “ Evans ” pro¬ duced a film of equal density in 12 to 14 hours. The film produced by strain Park Williams No. 8 remained on the surface almost indefinitely, while the film produced by these three strains frequently sank to the bottc m of the vessel after 18 to 24 hours’ incuba¬ tion, and shortly afterwards a second film began to grow. It is unfortunate that more strains were not investigated, as it would have been interesting to see whether rapid growth and the production of relatively large amounts of toxin were characteristics common to all members of this particular group of diphtheria bacilli. Results Obtained. The results are in agreement with those obtained by Paxson and Pedowitz and by Park, Williams, and Mann. Further, these results obtained experimentally in the laboratory are in accord with the vast amount of clinical evidence concerning the efficacy of monovalent diphtheria antitoxin winch has been accumulated during the last 25 years all over the world. It is reasonable to suppose that if different strains of diphtheria bacilli produced toxins which exhibited wide differences in their affinity for antitoxin, evidence—or at least indications—of this would have been forthcoming from workers studying diphtheria from the clinical side. As Park, Williams, and Mann point out, ever since diphtheria antitoxin has been used in practice hundreds of thousands of persons known to be contacts have been given practically complete protection for two weeks by the injection of monovalent antitoxin ; and, further, routine virulence tests throughout the world have shown that a monovalent antitoxin protects animals against a dose of living culture fatal to others not given antitoxin. References.—Bell, A. S. G. : Journ. R.A.M.C., 1922, xxxviii., 48. Dean, G. : Nuttall and Graham Smith, The Bacteriology of Diphtheria, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1913, 462. Dnrand, P. : Compt. rend, de la Soc. de Biol., 1918, Ixxxi., 1011 ; and f920, lxxxiii., 611 and 612. Glenny, A. T., and Allen, K.: Jonrn. Path, and Bacterid., 1921, xxiv., 61. Hartley, P., and Hartley, O. M. : Ibid., 1922, xxv., 458. Havens, L. C. : Journ. Infect. Dis., 1920, xxvi., 388. Paik, W. H., Williams, A. W., and Mann, A. G. : Jonrn. Immunol., 1922, vii., 243. Paxson, W. H., and Pedowitz, E. : Ibid., 1922, vii., 69. Romer, P. H.. and Sames, Th. : Ztsehr. f. Immunitatsforsch., 1909, iii., 344. Smith, Theobald, and Walker, E. : Twenty-eighth Annual Report of State Board of Health, Massachusetts, 1896, 649. The Lancet Office, 1, Bedford Street, Strand, W.C.2