Use of the Golden Syrian Hamster in the Study of Scrapie Virus

  • Paul Brown
  • Robert G. Rohwer
  • Marie-Claude Moreau-Dubois
  • Ernest M. Green
  • D. Carleton Gajdusek
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 134)


Various considerations may guide the choice of an animal species in which to study scrapie virus infection. The use of larger animals, for example, may be required for ease of surgical manipulation, or the examination of small organs or body fluids such as blood and cerebrospinal fluid. Characteristics of immunologic development, or biologic closeness to man, also may be important determinants in the choice of animal. When such considerations are not relevant, however, economy can be the major criterion, and of the many animal species now known to be susceptible to experimental infection by scrapie virus, the golden Syrian hamster offers the greatest economies of space, time, and money. This is obviously true in comparison to studies in primates, sheep and goats, mink, ferrets, cats, or guinea pigs. It is less obvious that the hamster would show an overall economy greater than is possible in the mouse.


Sodium Hypochlorite Inactivation Curve Golden Syrian Hamster Fuse Activity Chlorine Dioxide 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dickinson, A.G.; Fraser, H. In: Slow Transmissible Diseases of the Nervous System, Academic Press, New York (1979) 367.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kimberlin, R. H.; Walker, C.A. J Gen Virol 34 (1977) 295.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hartley, E.G. Nature 213 (1967) 1135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benarde, M.A. et al. Appl Microbiol 15 (1967) 257.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cronier, S. et al. Abstract N 58 In: Abstracts of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Microbiology (1977).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alliger, H. Personal communication (1980).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mould, D.L. et al. Res Vet Sci 6 (1965) 151.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hunter, G.D. et al. J Comp Pathol 79 (1969) 101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Adams, D.H. Res Vet Sci 13 (1972) 198.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kidson, C. et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 75 (1978) 2969.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coon, H.G.; Weiss, M.C. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 62 (1969) 852.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Malone, T.G. et al. J Virol 25 (1978) 933.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moreau-Dubois, M-C. et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 76 (1979) 5365.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Brown
    • 1
  • Robert G. Rohwer
    • 1
  • Marie-Claude Moreau-Dubois
    • 1
  • Ernest M. Green
    • 1
  • D. Carleton Gajdusek
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Central Nervous System Studies, National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and StrokeNational Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations