Recent studies of the olive-tubercle organism / by Erwin F. Smith.

  • Erwin Frink Smith
Date:
1908
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Recent studies of the olive-tubercle organism / by Erwin F. Smith. 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.

    8/24 (page 28)
    At the time of my note to the Centralhlatt in 1905, I had not seen Schifr-Giorgini’s organism, but I ol)laine(l it toward the end of 1905 from Krid, who had it from Kornaiith, and made inoculations witli it on olive shoots in 1905 and 1906. All of these inoculations failed, although they were several times repeated, for the most pjirt on young, actively growing shoots, using young cultures and inoculating very copiously with needle pricks on varieties of olives very sensitive to the knot. Altogether about .50 inoculations in three series (including 500 or more punctures) were made with this organism at considerable intervals during a period of * about two years, using slant-agar for the first lot, potato cultures for G the second, and slant-agar for the third. Xot a single tumor devel- { oj)ed. In one or two ca.ses only there was a slight swelling in the j: pricked area such as check punctures sometimes give, hut none of these developed into knots, and they were only slight cicatrization elevations. Bacteria were pre.sent at theeml-of a year in some of the.se punctures, as iletermined by a microscopic examination of sec- tions. Bo.ssihly these slight wound reactions are what Schilf-Gior- gini identified as tubercles, for he states that he obtained the ilisease with ‘‘pure cultures” of his organism repeatedly (ripetutamente); or it may he that his inoculation experiments were made with mixed cultures (they were Iluid cultures at any rate); or, llnalh', it may he that they were imule on limbs t)f olives alreaily infected with the tubercle organism and ready to develop tumors. Tubercles on olive trc'cs l)»>ing more easily ohser\'ahle, if they had been j)resent, than mixtures of bacteria in his fluid cultures, the second supposition is probably the correct one, since SchilT .says that the olive trees u.sed were sound ones and that the inoculations were from “glycerinatecl broth.” My twelve olive plants were under examination for many months, and in some instances, especially in the final inoculations, a| much greater amount of SchifTs organism was inserted than it has j ever been my custom to u.se in the case of the true tumor-producing|- organism. ' I can therefore confirm Doctor Petri’s statement respecting thisj organism, my own inoculation experiments being perfecth* in accord* with his. The Schiff-Giorgini organism, which has various well-, marked characteristics anti is not likely to be mistaken for any other organism peculiar to the olive tree, is not the cause of the olive tubercle, and StdiifTs conclusions, therefore, as to immunity, resist- ance, agglutination; etc., can not be accepted. There can be no doubt, I think, that I had SchifT-Giorgini’s organ- ism, since, except in some slight details likely to vary from culture to culture and ]>erson to person, it corresponded perfectly with his o'vn very full description, as 1 took care to liiul out before making many i