Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T06:44:23.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of vaccines and other substances upon the course of neurotropic virus infection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Anne McLaren
Anne McLaren
Affiliation:
Royal Veterinary College, University of London
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. When GDVII virus was injected into the brains of mice, subsequent intracerebral injections of mixed pertussis and diphtheria prophylactic significantly shortened the incubation period. Subsequent intramuscular injections of mixed prophylactic had no influence on the course of the infection.

2. Intramuscular inoculation of either GDVII virus or EMC virus results in a marked localization of paralysis in the injected limb. With GDVII virus, the localization probably arises from the use of the sciatic nerve route for entry into the c.n.s., and is unaffected by injection of substances into the opposite limb. With EMC virus, localization can be modified by injections into the opposite limb.

3. When GDVII or EMC virus was injected by a peripheral route other than intramuscular, intramuscular injections of vaccines or normal mouse brain suspension induced localization of paralysis in the injected limb.

4. Intramuscular inoculation of vaccines increased mortality in mice injected into the same limb muscle with GDVII virus. Within the limits tested the later the vaccines were injected relative to the virus, the greater was the effect.

5. When the vaccines used were more than a few months old, this facilitating effect was replaced by a protective effect. Mice injected intramuscularly with aged vaccines were significantly more resistant than the controls to GDVII virus injected into the same muscle.

6. Intracerebral inoculation of vaccines, and to a lesser extent other substances, increased mortality in mice which had received intramuscular inoculations of GDVII virus, by allowing virus to pass directly from the blood into the brain. This resulted in a predominance of cerebral symptoms when the vaccines were injected immediately after the virus, but not when the interval was lengthened to 48 hr.

7. The mode of action of modifying factors in neurotropic virus infections is discussed in the light of these results.

This work was done in the Department of Zoology, Oxford University, during the tenure of a grant from the Medical Research Council. I also wish to thank the Nuffield Foundation for their support of the virus research carried on in the Department.

I am most grateful to Dr F. K. Sanders for his advice and criticism, as well as for provision of technical facilities, and to Dr Donald Michie for assistance with the statistical treatment of the data, and for much other help.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , December 1957 , pp. 527 - 543
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, G. W. & Rondeau, J. L. (1954). J. Amer. med. Ass. 155, 1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, H. S. (1954). Lancet, 1, 464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, B. (1950). Proc. R. Soc. Med. 43, 780.Google Scholar
Bodian, D. (1954). Amer. J. Hyg. 60, 358.Google Scholar
Burnet, F. M. & Lush, D. (1938). Aust. J. exp. Biol. Med. 16, 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, D. J., Cohen, S. M. & Dalldorf, G. (1951). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 77, 834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Findlay, G. M. & Elton, C. (1933). J. comp. Path. 46, 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Findlay, G. M. & Howard, E. M. (1950). J. Path. Bact. 62, 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finney, D. J. (1947). Probit Analysis. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1925–1950). Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Flexner, S. & Amoss, H. L. (1914). J. exp. Med. 20, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flexner, S. & Amoss, H. L. (1917). J. exp. Med. 25, 525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geffen, D. H. (1950). Med. Offr, 83, 137.Google Scholar
Grant, J. (1953). Brit. med. J. 2, 66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, A. B. & Knowelden, J. (1950). Brit. med. J. 2, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, S. B. (1948). Ann. Eugen., Lond., 14, 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, H. A. & Bodian, D. (1941). Neural Mechanisms in Poliomyelitis. New York: Commonwealth Fund.Google ScholarPubMed
Hyden, H. (1943). Acta physiol. scand. 6, 1.Google Scholar
King, L. S. (1942). J. exp. Med. 76, 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lennette, E. H. & Hudson, N. P. (1936). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 34, 470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, B. P. (1950). Lancet, 1, 659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macklin, C. C. & Macklin, M. T. (1920). Arch. Neurol. Psychiat. Chicago 3, 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaren, A. (1953). Nature, Lond., 172, 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. K. (1950). Arch. Dis. Childh. 25, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medical Research Council Committee on inoculation procedures and neurological lesions: Report on Poliomyelitis and Tonsillectomy (1955). Lancet, 2, 5.Google Scholar
Milzer, A., Weiss, M. A. & Vanderboom, K. (1951). Proc. Soc. Amer. Bact. 4, 94.Google Scholar
Nicolau, S. & Galloway, I. A. (1928). Spec. Rep. Ser., med. Res. Coun., Lond., no. 121.Google Scholar
Reed, L. J. & Muench, H. (1938). Amer. J. Hyg. 27, 493.Google Scholar
Rosen, L. & Thooris, G. (1953). Amer. J. Hyg. 57, 237.Google Scholar
Russell, W. R. (1947). Brit. med. J. 2, 1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, W. R. (1949). Brit. med. J. 1, 465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabin, A. B. & Olitsky, P. K. (1938). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 38, 595, 597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, F. K. (1953). Possible multiplication cycles in neurotropic viruses, p. 297 in The Nature of Virus Multiplication, ed. Fildes, P. and Van Heyningen, W. E.Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, W. A. & Lloyd, W. (1931). J. exp. Med. 54, 533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartzman, G. (1950). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 75, 835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, L. & Peyrot, R. (1927). C.R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 96, 1124.Google Scholar
Stern, L., Zeitlin, S. M. & Gozman, R. M. (1928). C.R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 99, 365.Google Scholar
Theiler, M. (1930). Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 24, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend-Coles, W. F. & Findlay, G. M. (1953). Trans. R. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg. 47, 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trueta, J. (1955). Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 61, 883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trueta, J. & Hodes, R. (1954). Lancet, 1, 998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verlinde, J. D., Kret, A. & Wyler, R. (1955). Archiv. Gesamte Virusforsch. 6, 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, L. T. & Clow, A. D. (1936). J. exp. Med. 63, 433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwick, W., Seifried, O. & Witte, J. (1929). Arch. wiss. prakt. Tierheilk. 59, 511.Google Scholar