Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-p5m67 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-28T23:59:30.996Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Routine experience of the mouse-protection assay of pertussis vaccine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

J. Ungar  and
B. Basil
J. Ungar
Affiliation:
Glaxo Laboratories, Limited, Greenford, Middlesex
B. Basil
Affiliation:
Glaxo Laboratories, Limited, Greenford, Middlesex
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.

The mouse-protection test is discussed as a routine procedure. It has been shown that the assay is exceptionally subject to variation and that an average slope of 1·47 has been found over a year. With this slope and tests involving 90–180 mice it is possible tobe reasonably sure that a vaccine actually 3 times as potent as needed passes a test which lays down that the lower fiducial limit (P = 0·95) should exceed the specified requirement. For a vaccine only 1·5 times as potent as needed, much more extensive laboratory work would be necessary.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , March 1957 , pp. 45 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

References

Fixney, D. J. (1947). Probit Analysis. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Irwin, J. O. & Standfast, A. F. B. (1955). J. Hyg., Camb., 53, 106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, P., Eldering, G.. Dixon, M. K. & Misver, J. (1947). Amer. J. publ. Hlth, 37, 803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medical Research Council (1956). Report on vaccination against whooping cough. Brit. med. J. 2, 454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, A. A. (1954). Fed. Proc. 13, 799.Google Scholar
Ungar, J. (1952). Irish J. med. Sci., Sixth Series, no. 316, p. 145.Google Scholar