Klinische Wochenschrift

, Volume 47, Issue 16, pp 837–844 | Cite as

Die Ökologie und Bedeutung der Proteusgruppe

  • Elisabeth Tomaschoff
Übersichten

Zusammenfassung

Die einzelnen Arten der Proteusgruppe können aufgrund ihrer biochemischen Eigenschaften genau unterschieden werden und verhalten sich auch, was ihre Antibioticaresistenz anbelangt verschieden und typisch.

Während über das Vorkommen der schwärmend wachsenden Arten P. mirabilis und P. vulgaris in der Natur und im menschlichen Organismus viele Berichte vorliegen, sind die Kenntnisse über die nicht schwärmend wachsenden Arten P. morganii, P. rettgeri und Providencia in dieser Hinsicht spärlich. Die schwärmend wachsenden Proteusarten kommen als Urheber von Erkrankungen praktisch aller Organe in Frage, insbesondere aber von Wundinfektionen, alimentären Intoxikationen, Säuglingsdyspepsien und Harnwegsinfektionen. Die Arten P. rettgeri und Providencia werden hauptsächlich im Zusammenhang mit sekundären Harnwegsinfektionen angetroffen und führen wegen ihres hohen Resistenzgrades gegen Antibiotika und Desinfektionsmittel leicht zur Entstehung von Hospitalismus.

Summary

The species belonging into the Proteus-group can be differentiated according to their biochemical behaviour. They also behave differently and typically as far as their resistance to antibiotics is concerned.

While knowledge is good about the occurance in nature and in the human organism of strains with spreading growth, P. mirabilis and P. vulgaris, little is known in this respect about the other species P. morganii, P. rettgeri and Providencia. The strains with spreading growth can be found in connection with diseases of practically all human organs. They occur mainly in wounds, cases of alimentary intoxication, dyspepsy in infants and infections of the urinary tract. P. rettgeri and Providencia are isolated mainly in connection with secondary infections of the urinary tract and, owing to their high degree of resistance against antibiotics and desinfectants they may easily lead to the development of hospitalism.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Adam, A.: Säuglingsenteritis. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme 1956.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bahr, L.: Untersuchung über die Ätiologie der Cholera infantum. Zbl. Bakt., I. Abt. Orig.66, 335 (1912).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barber, M., andP. M. Waterworth: Antibiotic sensitivity of Proteus species. J. clin. Path.17, 69 (1964).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bardare, M., andL. Piovanelli: A case of P. hauseri meningoencephalitis in a premature infant. Minerva pediat.15, 1279 (1963).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barysh, N., andE. Izumi: Meningitis in newborn due to Proteus mirabilis associated with intracranial haemorrhage. Conn. Med.28, 420 (1964).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beck, E.: An interesting case: Proteus septicaemia. Schweiz. med. Wschr.92, 1708 (1962).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Becker, A. H.: Infection due to P. mirabilis in newborn nursery. Amer. J. Dis. Child.104, 355 (1962).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bedrynska-Dobeke, M., andZ. Walterowa: Proteus bacilli and their role in infantile morbidity, with special reference to acute diarrhoe. Przegl. epidem.19, 254 (1965).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bengtson, I. A.: Proteus group of organisms with special reference to agglutination and fermentation reactions and classification. J. infect. Dis.24, 428 (1919).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beurey, J., J. B. Dureux, andM. Weber: Proteus vulgaris septicaemia, severe complications of a leg ulcer. Bull. Soc. franç. Derm. Syph.71, 239 (1964).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Birchall, L., andJ. E. Alexander: Medical aspects of pyelonephritis. Medicine (Baltimore)29, 1 (1950).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Braude, A. J., andJ. Siemienski: Role of bacterial urease in experimental pyelonephritis. J. Bact80, 171 (1960).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Braun, O. H., u.H. Henckel: Über epidemische Säuglingsenteritis. Z. Kinderheilk.70, 33 (1951).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Briedigkeit, W., u.H. Wilke: Klinischer Beitrag zur Frage der enteralen Proteusinfektionen bei Säuglingen. Kinderärztl. Prax.31, 395 (1962).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brisker, A. D.: A case of toxic food infection caused by proteus. Gig. i Sanit.29, 104 (1964).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brooke, M. S.: Biochemical investigations on certain urinary strains of Enterobacteriaceae 1. B. cloacae, 2. Providencia. Acta path. microbiol. scand.29, 1 (1951).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brown, G. W.: Anaerogenic paracolon bacilli associated with gastroenteritis in children. Med. J. Aust.2, 658 (1952).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brugsch, H.: Über gehäuftes Auftreten schwerer Säuglingsdurchfälle unklarer Ätiologie. Arch. Kinderheilk.108, 177 (1936).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buttiaux, R., etA. Kesteloot: Les entérobactéries dénommés “bacilles para-coli” or paracolobactrum. Ann. Inst. Pasteur1, 103 (1948).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Callewaert, E., andJ. Desmyter: Synergism of antibiotics in proteus infection. Acta clin. belg.20, 214 (1965).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carlini, G., andE. Ventura: On a case of Proteus mirabilis sepsis originating in the gall bladder. Minerva med.52, 3320 (1961).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Carter, M., andN. J. Ehrenkranz: Immunologic studies in urinary tract infections. J. Lab. clin. Med.67, 13 (1966).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cecchetti, P., andM. Simeone: Radiographic and clinical observations on a case of vertebral osteomyelitis caused by a rare pathogenic agent, P. vulgaris. Riv. Infort. Mal. prof.49, 958 (1962).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Charocopos, S., N. Sakelaridis etT. Giogarakis: Proteus mirabilis meningitis. Arch. franç. Pédiat.20, 731 (1963).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cherry, W. B., P. L. Lentz, andL. A. Barnes: Implication of Proteus mirabilis outbreak of gastroenteritis. Amer. J. publ. Hlth36, 484 (1946).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chiu, V. S., P. D. Hoeprich: Susceptibility of Proteus and Providence bacilli to 10 antibacterial agents. Amer. J. med. Sci.241, 309 (1961).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Coleman, P. N., andS. Taylor: Coliform infection of urinary tract. J. clin. Path.2, 134 (1949).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Corcos, A., A. Stamrad, S. Abitbol etS. Corcos-Zarka: Pyocephalie à Proteus mirabilis chez un nourisson de un mois et demi. Nourisson42, 246 (1954).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Darnley, J. D.: Chloromycetin and Streptomycin in treatment of meningitis due to B. proteus. Neurologia2, 69 (1952).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    De la Fuente, A. A., andC. W. Belder: Meningo-encephalitis caused by B. proteus in a neonate. Ned. T. Geneesk.106, 716 (1962).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Desaux, A., H. Prétet etE. Perthain: Rôle du «Proteus vulgaris» en dermatologie. Ann. Soc. Fr. Derm. Syph.7, 174 (1947).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Didier, G., andA. Malagies: Abscess of the cerebellum of otitis origin caused by Proteus. J. Sci. Med.81, 563 (1963).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dörken, H.: Studien bei gehäuftem Auftreten von Harnwegsinfektionen durch Proteus vulgaris. Zbl. Gynäk.72, 81 (1950).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dura, J.: Proteus encephalitis. Sborn. vêd. Praci lék. Fak. Kárlové Univ.8, 457 (1965).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dvorsky, E., andP. Stepanek: Studies on urological complications in posttraumatic paraplegia. Rozhl. Chir.38, 700 (1959).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Edebo, L., andG. Laurell: Hospital infection of urinary tract with Proteus a clinical-bacteriological study with special reference to modes of infection. Acta path. microbiol. scand.43, 93 (1958).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Edwards, P. R., andW. H. Ewing: Identification of Enterobacteriaceae. Minneapolis: Burgess Publ. Co. 1957.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Freedmann, R. H., J. G. Love, andO. E. Helberg: Otitis proteus meningitis with recovery — report of a case. Proc. Mayo Clin.27, 20 (1952).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fitzpatrick, F. K.: Pyelonephritis in the mouse I. Infection experiments. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. (N.Y.)123, 336 (1966).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Galton, M. M., M. E. Hess, andP. Collins: Isolation and distribution in Florida of anaerogenic paracolon type 29911. J. Bact.53, 649 (1947).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gillespie, W. A.: Infection in urological patients. Proc. roy. Soc. Med.49, 1045 (1956).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Goldbloom, A., andM. Gobley: Case of acute cholangitis (post-operative) due to Proteus vulgaris, sepsis treated with aureomycin. Amer. J. dig. Dis.18, 63 (1951).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gormann, C. A., W. E. Wellmann, andJ. O. Eigler: Bacterial meningitis. II. Infections caused by certain gramnegative enteric organisms. Proc. Myao Clin.37, 703 (1962).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Graber, C. D., andM. C. Dodd: The role of Paracolobactrum and Proteus in infantile diarrhea. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci.66, 136 (1956).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Grampa, G., andG. Avanzini: Neonatal meningoencephalitis due to Proteus hauseri. Folia Hered. Path.14, 69 (1965).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Haenel, H., u.B. Dawidowski: Mikroökologische Untersuchungen zum Vorkommen von Proteus bei Erwachsenen. Zbl. Bakt., I. Abt. Orig.182, 183 (1961).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hanson, R. J., N. Karabatos, andR. D. Herrold: Species of the genus Proteus and some urological implications. J. Urol. (Baltimore)79, 1016 (1958).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Harris, J. D., andL. Wilson: Gram negative septicaemia; a report of 30 cases. Med. J. Aust.1, 13 (1965).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hauser, H.: Über das Vorkommen von Mikroorganismen im lebenden Gewebe des normalen tierischen Organismus. S.-B. phys. med. Soz. Erlangen16, 76 (1885).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Havens, L. C., andC. R. Mayfield: Paratyphoid-like infection due to Morgan's bacillus. J. Prev. Med.4, 179 (1930).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hewitt, C. B., E. L. Overholt, R. J. Findea, andJ. F. Patton: Gramnegative septicaemia in urology. J. Urol. (Baltimore)93, 299 (1965).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Holloway, W. J., andE. G. Scott: Proteus bacteriemia treated with large doses of penicillin. Antibiot. Med.4, 2 (1957).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hook, E. W., R. G. Petersdorf: In vitro and in vivo susceptibility of Proteus species to the action of certain antimicrobial drugs. Bull. Johns Hopk. Hosp.107, 337 (1960).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hussl, T.: Geheilter durch P. vulgaris erzeugter otogener Subduralabszeß mit Meningitis. Mschr. Ohrenheilk.85, 193 (1951).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hynes, J.: Isolation of intestinal pathogens by selective method. J. Path. Bact.54, 193 (1941).Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Joshi, B. N., J. N. Moses, andR. K. Gadgil: Proteus morgani as an etiological agent in meningitis; case report. Indian J. med. Sci.15, 862 (1961).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kauffmann, F.: Enterobacteriaceae, 2. Aufl. Kopenhagen: Munksgaard 1954.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kollár, K.: Zum Problem des klinischen Bildes und der Therapie von Proteus-Infektionen. Bratisl. lek. Listy31, 273 (1951).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Labrinacos, P., etVassardanis Melissakis: Sur une epidemie d'affection gastrointestinale à Proteus vulgaris. Arch. franç. Pédiat.10, 714 (1954).Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lányi, B.: Serological typing of proteus strains from infantile enteritis and other sources. Acta microbiol. Acad. Sci. hung.4, 417 (1956).Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lodenkämper, H., u.W. Ballies: Über Lebensmittelvergiftungen besonders durch Proteus. Arch. Hyg. (Berl.)126, 43 (1941).Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Lubsen, N., B. Boissevain, andH. Fass: Chlorhexidine as the probable cause of an increase of Proteus rettgeri infections of the urinary tract. Lancet1961 I, 921.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Mamaichuk, M.: Pathogenic and toxic properties in laboratory animals of B. proteus isolated from wounds. Zh. Mikrobiol. (Mosk.)31, 66 (1960).Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Maurice, P. F., andP. H. Hennemann: Medical aspects of renal stones. Medicine (Baltimore)40, 315 (1961).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    McGabe, W. R., andG. G. Jackson: Gramnegative bacteriemia I. Etiology and ecology. Arch. intern. Med.110, 847 (1962).Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Gramnegative bacteriemia. II. Clinical, laboratory and therapeutic observations. Arch. intern. Med.110, 856 (1962).Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Miles, A. A.: The mouse pathogenicity and toxicity of P. vulgaris. J. gen. Microbiol.5, 307 (1951).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Morgan, H. R.: Upon the bacteriology of the summer diarrhoe of infants. Brit. med. J.1906I, 908.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Moser, L.: Über bakterielle Lebensmittelvergiftungen. Dtsch. med. Wschr.78, 1762 (1953).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Murphy, G. P., andD. F. McDonald: Proteus, Pseudomonas and Achromobacter septicaemia as complications of chronic infection in anatomically predisposed urinary tracts. J. Urol. (Baltimore)85, 627 (1961).Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Nagy, J., Z. Melles u.M. Lakatos: Unsere Beobachtungen im Zusammenhang mit Proteus- und Pyocyaneus-Dyspepsien bei Säuglingen. Gyermekgyógyászat7, 26 (1956).Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Nestoresco, N., M. Popovici etD. Racovita: Recherches sur les germes du group Proteus isolés des infections urinaires. Acta urol. belg.31, 469 (1963).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Neter, E.: Paracolon and Proteus bacilli in feces of healthy infants. J. Pediat.26, 390 (1945).Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    , andJ. Bender: Bacillus morganii type I. in enterocolitis of infants. J. Pediat.19, 53 (1941).Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Omland, T.: Nosocomial urinary tract infections caused by P. rettgeri Acta path. microb. scand.48, 221 (1960).Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Plass, H. F.: Outbreak of diarrheal disease associated with paracolon. J. Lab. clin. Med.32, 886 (1947).Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Rance, C. P., T. E. Roy, W. L. Donohue, A. Sepp, R. Elder, andM. Finlayson: An epidemic of septicaemia with meningitis and haemorrhagic encephalitis in premature infants. J. Pediat.61, 24 (1962).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Report of Enterobact. Subcomm.: Int. Bull. bact. Nomencl.8, 25 (1958).Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Rettger, L. F., andC. R. Newell: Putrefaction with special reference to the proteus group. J. biol. Chem.13, 341 (1912).Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ridge, L. E., andE. N. Thomas: Infection with Providence type of paracolon bacillus in residential nursery. J. Path. Bact.69, 335 (1955).Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Robards, V. L., I. M. Thompson, andD. A. Lindberg: Urologic aspects of bacteremia and septicaemic shock. J. Urol. (Baltimore)93, 623 (1965).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Robert, Y.: Diarrhée épidémique du nouveau né'. Ann. Pédiat.174, 121 (1950).Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Rustigian, R., andC. A. Stuart: Taxonomic relationships in genus Proteus. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. (N.Y.)53, 241 (1943).Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Scherzer, A. L., D. Kaye, andH. R. Shinefield: Proteus mirabilis meningitis report of two cases treated with ampicillin. J. Pediat.68, 731 (1966).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Scholten, H. G., andN. J. Bakker: 60 children with urolithiasis. Proteus infections of the urinary tract as frequent cause of urolithiasis in infants and young children. Ned. T. Geneesk.111, 678 (1967).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Sedlák, J.: Enterobacteriaceae. Praha: SZN 1955.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    A. Tomasoffová, andM. Hatala: On occurance and etiological importance of Proteus hauseri in infections of man. J. Hyg. Epidem. (Praha)3, 442 (1959).Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Stenzel, W.: Proteus inconstans 0 13 H 30 als Enteritiserreger bei Kleinkindern. Zbl. Bakt., I. Abt.182, 178 (1961).Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Story, P.: Proteus infections in hospital. J. Path. Bact.68, 55 (1954).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Suie, T., M. M. Blatt, W. H. Havener, S. A. Sroufe, P. Balstad: Bacterial corneal ulcers with special reference to those caused by P. vulgaris. Amer. J. Ophthal.48, 775 (1959).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Tomasoffová, A.: Beitrag zur Taxonomie und Ökologie der Proteus-Providencia Gruppe. Acta Univ. Carol. Med. (Praha)7, 477 (1959).Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    -- Über die bakterielle Ätiologie von entzündlichen Erkrankungen der Harnwege. Dissertationsarbeit, Praha (1963).Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    B. Bindas, andL. Novacká: Outbreak of toxicoinfective food poisoning due to one serotype of P. hauseri, biotype P. mirabilis. J. Hyg. Epidem. (Praha)9, 54 (1965).Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    , u.J. Sedlák: Ein Beitrag zur Bedeutung und dem Wert von bakteriologischen Untersuchungen in der Urologie. Čas. Lék. cês.95, 1262 (1956).Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Ujváry, G., M. Gregács, andB. Lányi: Studies on the etiology of gastroenterocolitis in early infancy and childhood. III. Study on the role of P. vulgaris and P. mirabilis strains. Acta microbiol. Acad. Sci. hung.10, 315 (1963/64).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Ukleja, Z.: 2 cases of cerebral abscesses caused by proteus vulgaris. Otolaryng. pol.15, 81 (1961).Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Vortel, V.: Proteus encephalitis bei neugeborenen Kindern. Virchows Arch. path. Anat.333, 255 (1960).Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Wichels, P., andW. Barner: Food poisoning by Bacillus proteus. Med. Klin.21, 1880 (1925).Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Wood, C., andR. G. White: Experimental glomerulonephritis in mice by subcutaneous injection of heat. killed Proteus mirabilis. J. exp. Path.37, 49 (1956).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1969

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabeth Tomaschoff
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Medizinische Mikrobiologie und Virologie der Universität DüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations