Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-05T06:07:39.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A strain of mycobacterium isolated from skin lesions of a cold-blooded animal, Xenopus laevis, and its relation to atypical acid-fast bacilli occurring in man

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Herta Schwabacher
Herta Schwabacher
Affiliation:
Group 9 Pathological Laboratory, Peace Memorial Hospital Watford, Herts
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.

1. A brief review of the literature on acid-fast bacilli found in skin lesions is given.

2. The characteristics are described of an acid-fast bacillus isolated from a skin lesion found in the South African Xenopus laevis.

3. Reasons are given to support the view that chromogenic acid-fast bacilli cultured from skin lesions belong to the group of ‘Saprophytic acid-fast bacilli’.

4. The possibility of using the Middlebrook-Dubos haemolysin test as a tool to differentiate atypical acid-fast bacilli is discussed.

Thanks are due to Dr Charles Pike for all the histological reports, to Mr T. R. West for the microphotographs, to Dr Piersma (Messrs Lederle) for the gift of special sensitive Old Tuberculin for the Middlebrook test, to Dr Nassau for patients' sera and the ‘Goss’ antigen and finally to Mr W. J. Fincham for the titrations of the haemolysin titres.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , March 1959 , pp. 57 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

References

REFERENCES

Baerthlein, K. & Toyoda, A. (1913). Zbl. Bakt., Abt. Ref. Beiheft, 57, 281.Google Scholar
Bataillon, E., Dubard, & Terre, L. (1897). C.R. Soc. Biol. 49, 446.Google Scholar
Braun, W. (1954). Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., Wash., 40, 162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castelnuovo, G.,Gaudiano, A., Morelli, M. & Sciarrone-Polizzi, M. (1958). Abstr. 7th Int. Congress Microbiol. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Dubos, R. J. & Middlebrook, G. (1948). Amer. Rev. Tuberc. 58, 698.Google Scholar
Friedmann, F. F. (1903). Zbl. Bakt. 34, 647,793.Google Scholar
Gellerstedt, N. (1944). Acta path. microbiol. scand., 54, 574.Google Scholar
Griffiths, A. S. (1907). Royal Commission on Tuberculosis, 2nd Interim Report, part II, Appendix. H.M. Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Griffiths, A. S. (1911). Royal Commission on Tuberculosis, Final Report, part II. Appendix. H.M. Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Küster, E. (1905). Munch. med. Wschr., 52, 57.Google Scholar
Lancet, , (1957). Annotation, i, 1080.Google Scholar
Linell, F. & Norden, A. (1954). Acta tuberc. scand. (Suppl. 33).Google Scholar
MacCallum, P., Tolhurst, J. C., Buckle, G. & Sissons, H. A. (1948). J. Path. Bact. 60, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Middlebrook, G. (1950). J. clin. Invest. 29, 1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Middlebrook, G. & Dubos, R. J. (1948). J. exp. Med. 88, 521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassau, E., Schwabacher, H. & Hamilton, G. M. (1958). Tubercle, 39, 103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwabacher, H. (1933). Spec. Rep. Ser. med. Res. Coun., Lond., no. 182, p. 124. H.M. Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Sibley, W. K. (1889). Zbt. Bakt. 5, 831.Google Scholar
Tarshis, M. S. & Frisch, A. M. (1952). Amer. Rev. Tuberc. 65, 278,289,302.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. S. &Miles, A. A. (1946). Topley and Wilson's Principles of Bacteriology and Immunity, 3rd ed. London, Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd.Google Scholar