Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-trf7k Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-26T08:58:53.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Incomplete Antibodies in Experimental Brucella Infection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

J. C. Cruickshank
J. C. Cruickshank
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
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.

Incomplete antibodies demonstrable by the Coombs antiglobulin technique were found in almost all guinea-pigs inoculated subcutaneously with Brucella abortus. They were detected between the 20th and 30th day after infection and reached a peak between the 50th and 70th day, at which time their titre was 4—8 times that of the ordinary agglutinins.

Paper electrophoresis of sera from infected guinea-pigs showed a great increase in y-globulin as infection developed. Smaller increases in α1- and β-globulin were observed.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 54 , Issue 4 , December 1956 , pp. 562 - 568
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

References

Awad, N. A. (1955). Ph.D. Thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Brahic, J., Tamalet, J., Madet, P. & Girault, A. (1955). C.R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 149, 373.Google Scholar
Brahic, J., Tamalet, J., Tamalet, L.-J. & Madet, P. (1955). Bull. Soc. mid. H6p. Paris, 4° ser. no. 1–2, p. 41.Google Scholar
Clapp, K. H. (1953). Med. J. Aust. 1, 583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, R. R. A., Mourant, A. E. & Race, R. R. (1945a). Lancet, 2, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, R. R. A., Mourant, A. E. & Race, R. R. (1945b). Brit. J. exp. Path. 26, 255.Google Scholar
Corticelli, B. (1952). Boll. Soc. ital. Biol. sper. 28/6, 1126.Google Scholar
Cox, C. D. & Kutner, L. J. (1950). Science, 111, 545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, L. K. (1948). Amer. J. publ. Hlth, 38, 645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, A. A., Stevenson, W. J. & Lewis, F. A. (1953). Med. J. Aust. 1, 619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fey, H. & Burki, F. (1954). Schweiz. med. Wschr. 83, 573.Google Scholar
Griffitts, J. J. (1947). Publ. Hlth Rep., Wash., 62, 865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, W. H. & Manion, R. E. (1953). J. clin. Invest. 32, 96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, L. M. (1953). J. infect. Dis. 92, 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, L. O. & Wilson, M. M. (1951). Nature, Lond., 167, 558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proom, H. (1943). J. Path. Bact. 55, 419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renoux, G. (1950). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 78, 798.Google Scholar
Report (1953). Tech. Rep. Wld Hlth Org. no. 67.Google Scholar
Schuhadt, V. T., Woodfin, H. W. & Knolle, K. C. (1951). J. Bact. 61, 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, B. M. & Kuhns, D. M. (1953). Amer. J. clin. Path. 23, 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiener, A. S. (1944). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 56, 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M. M. & Merrifield, E. V. O. (1951). Lancet, 2, 913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar