Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:40:56.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Researches on the Intestinal Protozoa of Monkeys and Man

III. The action of emetine on natural amoebic infections in Macaques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Clifford Dobell  and
Ann Bishop
Clifford Dobell
Affiliation:
National Institute for Medical Research, London, N.W.3.
Ann Bishop
Affiliation:
National Institute for Medical Research, London, N.W.3.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Five tame monkeys (3 Macacus sinicus and 2 M. rhesus) have been treated with emetine bismuthous iodide per os, in order to study the effects of the alkaloid upon their intestinal amoebae (and other protozoa).

These monkeys were originally infected with Entamoeba histolytica (large and small strains), Entamoeba coli, Endolimax nana, Enteromonas (= Tricercomonas), and Giardia. Treatment with emetine ultimately eradicated the E. histolytica infections from four out of five animals, but did not remove any of their other intestinal protozoa.

It has been found necessary to administer 60 mg. of emetine bismuthous iodide daily for about a week to a macaque weighing about 5 kg. in order to eradicate an infection with E. histolytica. Such dosage was toxic to four of the five monkeys used.

The general conclusion drawn is that emetine affects the various intestinal protozoa of M. sinicus and M. rhesus exactly as it does the comparable species in man; and it is suggested that macaques can therefore be utilized—if similar methods be employed—in place of men in future chemotherapeutic experiments directed towards the discovery of remedies for human amoebic dysentery.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 1929 , pp. 446 - 468
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1929

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Boeck, W. C. and Drbohlav, J. (1925). The cultivation of Endamoeba histolytica. Amer. J. Hyg. 5, 371.Google Scholar
Dale, H. H. and Dobell, C. (1917). Experiments on the therapeutics of amoebic dysentery. J. Pharmacol. and Exp. Therap. 10, 399.Google Scholar
Dobell, C. (1916). Incidence and treatment of Entamoeba histolytica infection at Walton Hospital. Brit. Med. J. 2, 612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dobell, C. (1917). Reports upon investigations in the United Kingdom of dysentery cases received from the Eastern Mediterranean.—I. Amoebic dysentery, and the protozoological investigation of cases and carriers. Medical Research Committee, Special Report Series No. 4. (London: H.M. Stationery Office.)Google Scholar
Dobell, C. (1919). The Amoebae living in Man: a Zoological Monograph. London.Google Scholar
Dobell, C. (1927). Further observations and experiments on the cultivation of Entamoeba histolytica from cysts. Parasitology, 19, 288.Google Scholar
Dobell, C. (1928). Researches on the intestinal Protozoa of Monkeys and Man.—I. General introduction, and II. Description of the whole life-history of Entamoeba histolytica in cultures. Parasitology, 20, 357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobell, C., Gettings, H. S., Jepps, M. W., and Stephens, J. B. (1918). A study of 1300 convalescent cases of dysentery from home hospitals. Medical Research Committee, Special Report Series No. 15. (London: H.M. Stationery Office.)Google Scholar
Dobell, C. and Laidlaw, P. P. (1926). The action of ipecacuanha alkaloids on Entamoeba histolytica and some other entozoic amoebae in culture. Parasitology, 18, 206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobell, C. and Laidlaw, P. P. (1926 a). On the cultivation of Entamoeba histolytica and some other entozoic amoebae. Parasitology, 18, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobell, C. and Low, G. C. (1922). Amoebiasis, in: Byam and Archibald, The Practice of Medicine in the Tropics, 2, 1342.Google Scholar
Dobell, C. and O'Connor, F. W. (1921). The Intestinal Protozoa of Man. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessel, J. F. (1928). Intestinal protozoa of monkeys. Univ. California Publ. Zool. 31, 275.Google Scholar
Knowles, R. (1928). An Introduction to Medical Protozoology. Calcutta.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laidlaw, P. P., Dobell, C., and Bishop, A. (1928). Further experiments on the action of emetine in cultures of Entamoeba histolytica. Parasitology, 20, 207.Google Scholar
Mayer, M. (1919). Klinische, morphologische und experimentelle Beobachtungen bei Amöbenerkrankungen. Arch. f. Schiffs- u. Tropenhyg. 23, 177.Google Scholar
Report of the Medical Research Council for the year 1924–1925. London: H.M. Stationery Office. 1925 [published 22 Jan. 1926], pp. 31, 32.Google Scholar
Report of the Medical Research Council for the year 1926–1927. London: H.M. Stationery Office. 1928 [published Jan. 1928], pp. 33–35.Google Scholar
StJohn, J. H.. (1926). Differential characteristics of the amoebae of man in culture. Amer. J. Trop. Med. 6, 319.Google Scholar
Sellards, A. W. and Leiva, L. (1923). Investigations concerning the treatment of amoebic dysentery. Philippine J. Sci. 22, 1.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. G. (1929). Protozoal parasites. In: Discussion on monkeys and human disease. Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. (Sect. Trop. Dis. and Parasitol.), 22, 30.Google Scholar