Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:23:37.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The immunization of mice, calves and pigs against Salmonella dublin and Salmonella cholerae-suis infections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

H. Williams Smith
Affiliation:
The Animal Health Trust, Stock, Essex
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. Antisera prepared in rabbits or calves against live Salmonella dublin gave mice some degree of protection against oral infection with this organism. Both antiserum prepared against heat-killed S. dublin and dead vaccines prepared in a variety of ways produced little or no immunity.

2. A rough variant of S. dublin of low virulence for mice, no. 17 A, produced a reasonably good immunity against oral infection with S. dublin in mice but not in calves. Mice that survived injection with another rough variant that possessed a considerable degree of virulence for these animals, no. 51, were immune to oral infection with S. dublin. Experimentally and naturally, this variant and, to a lesser extent, 9S, a smooth variant of S. gallinarum of reduced virulence, produced an appreciable degree of immunity in calves against S. dublin infection; none of the calves injected with these variants showed any signs of ill-health as a result.

3. Two rough variants of S. cholerae-suis, nos. 3 and 6, possessed a considerable degree of virulence for mice; those that survived were resistant to oral infection with S. cholerae-suis. Experimentally and naturally, both variants produced an appreciable degree of immunity in pigs.

4. Mice that survived vaccination with the rough S. cholerae-suis variant no. 6 were resistant to oral infection with S. dublin. Those that survived vaccination with the rough S. dublin variant no. 51 were resistant to oral infection with S. cholerae-suis and S. typhi-murium; they were fully susceptible to parenteral administration of Escherichia coli and Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae.

5. Vaccination with S. cholerae-suis variants 3 and 6 and S. dublin variant 51 provoked the formation of H but not O antibodies. These variants were never found to mutate from rough to smooth in vitro or in vivo.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

References

Braun, W. & Bonestell, A. E. (1947). Independent variations of characteristics in Brucella abortus variants and their detection. Amer. J. vet. Res. 8, 386.Google ScholarPubMed
Cruickshank, R. (1960). Mackie and McCartney's Handbook of Bacteriology, 10th ed.Edinburgh: E. and S. Livingstone Ltd.Google Scholar
Felix, A. & Callow, B. R. (1943). Typing of paratyphoid B bacilli by means of Vi bacteriophage. Brit. med. J. ii, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henning, M. W. (1953). Calf paratyphoid. II. Artificial immunization. Orderstepoort J. vet. Res. 26, 25.Google Scholar
Smith, H. Williams (1952). The evaluation of culture media for the isolation of salmonellae from faeces. J. Hyg., Camb., 50, 21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, H. Williams (1956 a). The use of live vaccines in experimental Salmonella gallinarum infection in chickens with observations on their interference effect. J. Hyg., Camb., 54, 419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, H. Williams (1956 b). The immunity to Salmonella gallinarum infection in chickens produced by live cultures of members of the Salmonella genus. J. Hyg., Camb., 54, 433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed