The bacteriology of whooping cough / David J. Davis.

  • David John Davis
Date:
[1906]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: The bacteriology of whooping cough / David J. Davis. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    7/40 page 5
    cause. His results could not be verified by Cohn and Neumann or by Czaplewski and Hensel. In 1899 his assistant, Buttermilch,1 attempted to identify Ritter’s organism with the organism described by Vincenzi and also with that described by Czaplewski and Hensel. Neither Ritter nor Buttermilch used blood media, so that their results are not directly comparable with those obtained by later investigators. Bacilli.—Burger3 in 1883 was probably the first to call attention to numerous bacilli in the sputum of whooping-cough patients. He made no culture experiments, studying only stained preparations. He called attention to the possibility of diagnos- ing the disease from the very large number of organisms seen in the sputum. His results are of little value, because no cultures were made. Afanassiew,3 in 1887, described short motile, bacilli, often in masses and chains. He claims that he was able to produce the disease in dogs and rabbits by the injection of pure cultures of the bacillus. He studied 10 cases. He did not use blood media, and his method of obtaining pure cultures is questionable. Von Genser, Wendt, and Szemetschenko claim to have substantiated his results. Spengler4 was apparently the first to describe an organism, in pertussis sputum, closely resembling the influenza bacillus in its morphological and biological aspects. His organisms are somewhat thicker and larger than the influenza bacillus, and have often a tendency to thread formation. Sometimes the protoplasm of the cells is filled with them. They grow only upon hemoglobin media. He considered his organism of etiological importance in the disease. Kopliks found a small, short, motile bacillus in smears and culture in the sputum in 13 out of 16 cases investigated. It grew on ordinary media, but throve much better when hydrocele fluid was added. It was pathogenic to white mice, and intravenous injections into rabbits caused pyemia. It is very doubtful whether he was working with pure cultures, as his method of isolating the organism was hardly reliable. His results with animals suggest the presence of some of the ordinary pus producers of the mouth and throat. Czaplewski and Hensel6 likewise found a small, short, polar-staining bacillus, slightly larger than the influenza bacillus, but which grew upon non-hemoglobin media. They isolated the organism from sputum on blood-serum plates. Morpho- logically it resembled very closely the influenza-like organisms described by Spengler, Jochmann, and Vincenzi. Buttermilch contended that it was identical with Ritter’s diplococcus. Spengler said that it was the same as his bacillus, but that Czaplewski and Hensel did not obtain it in pure culture, and hence, when transferred to other media, the mixed organisms developed which were mistaken for the bacilli. Czaplew- ski’s results were confirmed independently by Zusch,? who used very much the same technique, and also by A. Cavasse. The latter,» in 1904, described another organism, motile, growing only in liquids, staining very poorly, and never before observed in pertussis sputum; its significance he does not attempt to indicate. Vincenzi,9 in 18 cases, found a small, influenza-like organism, non-Gram staining, which grew on non- hemoglobin media. He say’s that it is different from Czaplewski’s organism. Elmassian1 described an organism identical with Pfeiffer’s influenza organism, 1 Ibid,., 1890, 36, p. 367. * St. Petersburger med. Wchnschr., 1887, 4, p. 349. 4 Deutsche med. Wchnschr., 1897, 23, p. S30. 5 Ceptralbl. f. Bakt., 1897, 22, p. 222. 6 Deutsche med. Wchnschr., 1897, 23, p. 586. • Ibid., 1883, 9, p. 7. ’ Centralbl. /. Bakt., ,898, 24. pp. 721, 769. 8 Arch. gin. de Mid., 1904, 193, p. 1345. 9 Deutsche med. Wchnschr., 1898, 24, p.631.
    No text description is available for this image
    No text description is available for this image
    No text description is available for this image