Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T18:57:46.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Infectivity titrations of myxoma virus in the rabbit and the developing chick embryo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Frank Fenner  and
G. A. McIntyre
Frank Fenner
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Canberra
G. A. McIntyre
Affiliation:
Division of Mathematical Statistics, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Canberra
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.

Titrations of the same preparations of myxoma virus have been made on the chorioallantoic membranes of developing chick embryos and by the intradermal inoculation of rabbits. Six strains of widely differing virulence for the rabbit were used.

No differences were found in the infectivity of different strains for either the rabbit or the egg, even though the severity of the symptoms produced in the rabbit varied greatly with different strains; and although some had never previously been inoculated in eggs and one had been subjected to seventy-five serial passages on the chorioallantoic membrane.

The egg was less sensitive than the rabbit, the mean number of infections per dose for rabbits relative to eggs being 2.46, taken over all strains. This ratio did not differ significantly between strains of myxoma virus.

There was evidence of some host variation in rabbit susceptibility and a great deal of variation in egg susceptibility. The maximum value for the average probability that an infectious unit would produce a lesion in the rabbit skin was about 0.6, and the maximum value for the average probability that an infectious unit would produce a pock on the chorioallantoic membrane was 0.25.

Titration of several closely spaced dilutions of different strains of the virus on the chorioallantoic membrane showed a reasonably close approximation to a proportional relationship between the pock count and the virus dilution. The change with dilution in the proportion of failures to infect rabbits approximated to expectation. Both lines of evidence are consistent with the hypothesis that a pock or skin lesion is initiated by one infective unit of virus, and that the infective unit is stable with dilution.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , June 1956 , pp. 246 - 257
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

References

REFERENCES

Beveridge, W. I. B. & Burnet, F. M. (1946). Spec. Rep. Ser. med. Res. Coun., Lond., no. 256.Google Scholar
Dulbecco, R. & Vogt, M. (1954). J. exp. Med. 99, 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenner, F., Day, M. F. & Woodroofe, G. M. (1956). J. Hyg., Camb. (3rd paper of group).Google Scholar
Fenner, F. & Marshall, I. D. (1956). J. Hyg., Camb. (in preparation).Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. & Yates, F. (1953). Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural and Medical Research, p. 57. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Houlihan, R. B. & Derrick, W. A. (1945). Science, 101, 364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houlihan, R. B. & Lawson, G. M. (1945). J. infect. Dis. 76, 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurst, E. W. (1937). Brit. J. exp. Path. 18, 15.Google Scholar
Moran, P. A. P. (1954 a). J. Hyg., Camb., 52, 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, P. A. P. (1954 b). J. Hyg., Camb., 52, 444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, K., Marshall, I. D. & Fenner, F. (1954). J. Hyg., Camb., 52, 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mykytowycz, R. (1953). Nature, Lond., 172, 448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, R. F. (1940). J. exp. Med. 71, 439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, D. B. W., Crawley, J. F. & Rhodes, A. J. (1949). J. Immunol. 63, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, T. F. M., Coriell, L. L., Blank, H. & Gray, A. (1953). J. Immunol. 71, 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, B. L. (1951). Biometrika, 38, 330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar