Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:18:54.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The intracerebral mouse-protection test for pertussis vaccines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

J. O. Irwin  and
A. F. B. Standfast
J. O. Irwin
Affiliation:
Statistical Research Unit of the Medical Research Council, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, W.C.I
A. F. B. Standfast
Affiliation:
The Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine, Elstree, Hertfordshire
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.

Four series of tests, A, B, C and D, have been considered in detail. In the first two series, to obtain the values of the ImD 50, percentages of survivors were transformed into probits, and the best-fitting straight lines connecting the probits with the logarithms of the doses were obtained by the method of maximum likelihood. This is the most accurate method to use. These results showed that the error of the test was large, but there were no significant differences in the slope of the probitlog dose relation in the results of tests from any one laboratory. The slope (1·46 ± 0·09) obtained from series A was greater than that from series B (0·79 ± 0·06). with a consequent increase in accuracy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , March 1957 , pp. 50 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

References

Armitage, P. & Allen, I. (1950). Methods of estimating the LD 50 in quantal response data. J. Hyg.. Camb., 48, 298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Armitage, P. & Perry, W. L. M. (1957). The British Standard for pertussis vaccine. To be published.Google Scholar
Finney, D. J. (1952). Statistical Method in Biological Assay, chapter 20. London: Griffin.Google Scholar
Irwin, J. O. & Standfast, A. F. B. (1955). Litter-mate assays of pertussis vaccine. J. Hyg., Camb., 53, 106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, P. L., Eldering, G., Dixon, M. K. & Misner, J. (1947). Mouse protection tests in the study of pertussis vaccine. Amer. J. publ. Hlth, 37, 803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, P. L., Updyke, E. L. & Eldering, G. (1949). Comparison of pertussis cultures by mouse protection and virulence tests. Amer. J. publ. Hlth, 39, 179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Litchfield, J. T. & Fertig, J. W. (1941). On a graphical solution of the dosage-effect curve. Johns Hopk. Hosp. Bull. 69, 276.Google Scholar
Medical Research Council (1956). Report on vaccination against whooping cough. Brit. med. J. 2, 454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minimal Requirements (1948). Pertussis Vaccine. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., U.S.A.Google Scholar
Reed, L. J. & Muench, H. A. (1938). A simple method of estimating fifty per cent endpoints. Amer. J. Hyg. 27, 493.Google Scholar
Worcester, J. & Wilson, E. B. (1943). A table for determining LD 50 or the fifty per cent endpoint. Proc. nat. Acad. Sci., Wash., 29, 207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization Technical Report Series (1953). Diphtheria and Pertussis Vaccination, no. 61, p. 66.Google Scholar