Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:40:30.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observations pointing to the conjunctiva as the portal of entry in salmonella infection of guinea-pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

B. Moore
B. Moore
Affiliation:
Public Health Laboratory, Exeter
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.

In the course of salmonella epizootics in guinea-pigs due to Salm. enteritidis and Salm. typhi-murium, respectively, salmonella conjunctivitis was widespread, and conjunctival swabbing was found to be a more effective procedure for detecting the spread of infection than the examination of rectal swabs. Eye-swabbing with segregation of eye-positive guinea-pigs and their cage-mates was apparently successful in controlling two Salm. enteritidis epizootics.

Later experimental observations showed that the conjunctival route was a far more effective one for producing systemic salmonella infection in guinea-pigs than the oral route. The 50% spleen infecting dose by the conjunctival route was of the order of 100 organisms, while a dose of 100,000,000 organisms of the same strain of Salm. enteritidis was ineffective by mouth. Blood-borne invasion from the primary conjunctival lesion occurred by the lymphatic route. Gut infection of guinea-pigs infected experimentally throughout the eye was secondary to spleen infection and probably occurred by excretion of salmonellae through the gall-bladder.

The importance of the conjunctival route in natural salmonella infections of guinea-pigs was confirmed by goggling experiments, which showed that, except in animals with complicating conditions such as pregnancy, effectively goggled guinea-pigs were highly resistant to infection in environments heavily contaminated with Salm. enteritidis which produced high infection rates in ungoggled control animals.

I am very grateful to my technician, Mr G. Sandys, for his enthusiastic help, particularly with the goggling experiments.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , September 1957 , pp. 414 - 433
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

References

Bainbridge, F. A. & O'Brien, R. A. (1911). An epizootic in guinea-pigs in which B. enteritidis (Gaertner) was present. J. Path. Bact. 16, 145.Google Scholar
Calmette, A. (1923). Tubercle Bacillus Infection and Tuberculosis in Man and Animals. p. 123. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
Calmette, A., Guérin, C. & Grysez, V. (1913). Cited by Calmette, A. (1923). Tubercle Bacillus Infection and Tuberculosis in Man and Animals. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
Duthie, E. C. & Mitchell, C. A. (1931). Salmonella enteritidis infection in guinea pigs and rabbits. J. Amer. vet. med. Ass. 78, 27–41.Google Scholar
Edington, J. W. (1929). Endemic infection of guinea-pigs with B. aertrycke (Mutton). J. comp. Path. 42, 258–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, W. M., Bruner, D. W. & Peckham, M. C. (1955). Blindness in chicks associated with salmonellosis. Cornell Vet. 45, 239–47.Google Scholar
Friedlander, R. D. & Hertert, L. D. (1929). Virulence of B. paratyphosus B (aertrycke) in guinea-pigs. J. infect. Dis. 44, 481–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, Katherine M. & Schultz, O. T. (1922). An epizootic among guinea-pigs due to a paratyphoid B bacillus. J. infect. Dis. 30, 516–35.Google Scholar
McCullough, N. B. & Eisele, C. W. (1951). Experimental human salmonellosis. I. Pathogenicity of strains of Salmonella meleagridis and Salmonella anatum obtained from spray-dried whole egg. J. infect. Dis. 88, 278–89.Google Scholar
Maternowska, I. (1930). Beobachtungen über eine Meerschweinchen-Paratyphusepidemie (Paratyphus cavium). Z. InfektKr. Haustiere, 38, 50–63.Google Scholar
Okamoto, T. (1926). Epidemiologische Beobachtungen an Mause und Meerschweinchen. Klin. Wschr. 5, 795–6.Google Scholar
Ørskov, J., Jensen, K. A. & Kobayashi, K. (1928). Studien uber Breslauinfektion der Mause, speziell mit Rucksicht auf die Bedeutung des Retikuloendothelgewebes. Z. ImmunForsch. 55, 34–68.Google Scholar
Paget, G. E. (1954). Exudative hepatitis in guinea-pigs. J. Path. Bact. 67, 393–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pandalai, N. G. (1934). An epizootic affecting laboratory-bred guinea-pigs. Indian J. med. Res. 21, 625–6.Google Scholar
Papp, Karola (1956). Experiences prouvant que la voie d'infection de la rougeole est la contamination de la muqueuse conjonctivale. Rev. Immunol. 20, 27–36.Google Scholar
Petrie, G. F. & O'Brien, R. A. (1910). A guinea-pig epizootic associated with an organism of the food-poisoning group but probably caused by a filter-passer. J. Hyg., Camb., 10, 287–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raebiger, H. (1923). Das Meerschweinchen: seine Zucht, Haltung und Krankheiten. Hanover: Schaper.Google Scholar
Ratcliffe, H. (1946). Infectious diseases of laboratory animals. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 46, 77–96.Google Scholar
Smith, T. & Nelson, J. B. (1927). Studies on a paratyphoid infection in guinea pigs. II. Factors involved in the transition from epidemic to endemic phase. J. exp. Med. 45, 365–77.Google Scholar
Uchida, Y. (1926). Experimentelle Infektionen von Mausen und Meerschweinchen parenteral und von den naturlichen Eingangspforten aus. III. Z. Hyg. InfektKr. 106, 281–307.Google Scholar