Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:22:29.758Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An analysis of the complement-fixation reaction in influenza*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

L. Hoyle
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. An analysis of the complement-fixation reaction in influenza has been made by the use of chess-board experiments in which serial dilutions of antigen are tested against serial dilutions of serum with a constant dose of complement.

2. The reaction has been shown to be a complex one, involving two different antigens, the virus elementary body and the soluble antigen.

3. The soluble antigens of all strains of influenza virus A are identical, and different from the antigen of virus B.

4. The elementary body is a complex of several different antigens, and differences in antigenic structure can be detected between different strains of virus A. All elementary body preparations, however, contain soluble antigen which may be an intrinsic part of the elementary body or may be adsorbed.

5. The most suitable antigen for use in epidemiological studies is one containing chiefly soluble antigen, and a description is given of the method of preparation and use of such an antigen derived from infected mouse-lung tissue.

The author wishes to express his indebtedness to Dr C. H. Andrewes for some of the strains of influenza virus used in this work.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , September 1945 , pp. 170 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1945

References

REFERENCES

Dean, H. R. & Webb, R. A. (1926). J. Path. Bact. 29, 473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaton, M. D. (1941). J. Immunol. 41, 383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairbrother, R. W. & Hoyle, L. (1937). J. Path. Bact. 44, 213.Google Scholar
Francis, T. JN. (1940). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol., N.Y., 45, 861.Google Scholar
Friedewald, W. F. (1943). J. Exp. Med. 78, 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henle, W., Henle, G., Groupé, V. & Chambers, L. A. (1944). J. Immunol. 48, 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoyle, L. & Fairbrother, R. W. (1937). J. Hyg., Camb., 37, 512.Google Scholar
Lennette, E. H. & Horsfall, F. L. (1940). J. Exp. Med. 72, 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lennette, E. H. & Horsfall, F. L. (1941). J. Exp. Med. 73, 581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lush, D. & Burnet, F. M. (1937). Aust. J. Exp. Biol. Med. Sci. 15, 375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nigg, C., Crowley, J. H. & Wilson, D. E. (1941). J. Immunol. 42, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, E. M. (1941). Lancet, 2, 696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar