Archiv für Mikrobiologie

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 197–206 | Cite as

Agglutination of vertebrate erythrocytes by strains of newcastle disease and fowl-plague viruses

  • M. K. Tolba
  • Josephine K. Eskarous
Article

Summary

In this investigation the ability of three and five strains of Newcastle disease and fowl-plague viruses respectively to agglutinate erythrocytes of 19 animals belonging to various classes of vertebrates were determined. The results obtained revealed the following facts:
  1. 1.

    The behaviour of erythrocytes collected from different individuals of any one animal species, with regards their agglutinability by a specific virus strains was, more or less, similar. A few exceptions to the above rule were observed in which the erythrocytes from one individual behaved in a distinctly different manner from those of other individuals of the same animal species.

     
  2. 2.

    Closely related strains of one and the same virus vary widely in their powers of agglutinating erythrocytes of various animal species; one strain may fail completely to agglutinate red blood cells of a certain animal easily agglutinated by the other. Such differences in the agglutinability of red blood cells are, of course more pronounced between different viruses than between strains of one and the same virus.

     

The agglutination of erythrocytes of different animal species thus serves as a quick means of identifying and separating different viruses as well as different strains of one and the same virus. Several examples supporting this view were cited and discussed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brandly, C. A., H. E. Moses, E. L. Jungherr and E. E. Jones: Amer. J. vet. Res. 7, 289 (1946).Google Scholar
  2. Burnet, F. M.: Aust. J. exp. Biol. and med. Sci 20, 81 (1942).Google Scholar
  3. Burnet, F. M., and W. C. Boake: J. Immunol. Virus-Res. and exp. Chemother. 53, 1 (1946).Google Scholar
  4. Chu, C. M.: J. Hyg. (Lond.) 46, 239 (1948).Google Scholar
  5. Clark, E., and F. P. O. Nagler: Aust. J. exp. Biol. med. Sci. 21, 103 (1943).Google Scholar
  6. Daubney, R., and G. Ishac: J. comp. Path. 63, 255 (1953).Google Scholar
  7. Hirst, G. K.: Science 94, 22 (1941).Google Scholar
  8. Lahelle, O., and F. L. Horsfall Jr.: Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. (N. Y.) 71, 713 (1949).Google Scholar
  9. Levens, J. H., and J. F. Enders: Science 102 117 (1945).Google Scholar
  10. Lush, D.: J. comp. Path. 53, 157 (1943).Google Scholar
  11. Mills, K. C., and A. R. Dochez: Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. (N. Y.) 75, 140 (1944).Google Scholar
  12. Nagler, F. P. O.: Med. J. Aust. 1, 281 (1942).Google Scholar
  13. Olitsky, P. K., and R. H. Yager: Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. (N. Y.) 71, 719 (1949).Google Scholar
  14. Sabin, A. K., and E. L. Buescher: Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. (N. Y.) 74, 222 (1950).Google Scholar
  15. Tamm, I.: Biol. Bull. 102, 149 (1952).Google Scholar
  16. Tolba, M. K., and J. K. Eskarous: Proc. Egyp. Acad. Sci. 10, 17, (1954).Google Scholar
  17. Winslow, N. S., R. P. Hanson, E. Upton and C. A. Brandly: Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. (N. Y.) 74, 174 (1950).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1960

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. K. Tolba
    • 1
    • 2
  • Josephine K. Eskarous
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Botany, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of CairoCairoEgypt
  2. 2.LondonUK
  3. 3.CairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations