Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-m2b9p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T15:28:20.644Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Complement fixation with antigens prepared from bluetongue virus-infected mouse brains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

A. Kipps
A. Kipps
Affiliation:
The C.S.I.R. and U.C.T. Virus Research Unit, Department of Pathology, University of Gape Town
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.

Six strains of bluetongue virus were compared by cross complement-fixation tests performed on Perspex sheets according to the method of Fulton & Dumbell using antigens derived from crude saline extracts, and acetone and ether extracts, of infected suckling mouse brains. Only minor differences were encountered with the former and no significant differences with the latter. The reasons for this are discussed.

In the neutralization tests important differences were demonstrated between strains.

There is evidence that the soluble antigen is composed of particles of varying size, that the smaller particles are responsible for the marked overlapping in the complement-fixation tests, and that increasing complexity associated with increasing particle size may be concerned with increasing serological specificity.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , March 1956 , pp. 79 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, R. A. (1947). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 22, 7.Google Scholar
Alexander, R. A. & Haig, D. A. (1951). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 25, 3.Google Scholar
Casals, J. (1947). J. Immunol. 56, 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casals, J. (1949). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 70, 339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulton, F. & Dumbell, K. R. (1949). J. gen. Microbiol. 3, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, J. A. (1952). J. Immunol. 68, 461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraft, L. M. & Melnick, J. L. (1950). J. exp. Med. 92, 483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, M. M., Osler, A. G., Bier, O. G. & Heidelberger, M. (1946). J. exp. Med. 84, 535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neitz, W. O. (1948). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 23, 93.Google Scholar
Polson, A. & Linder, A. M. (1953). Biochem. biophys. Acta, 11, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polson, A. & Madsen, T. (1954). Biochem. biophys. Acta, 14, 366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, L. J. & Muench, H. (1938). Amer. J. Hyg. 27, 493.Google Scholar
van den Ende, M., Linder, A. & Kaschula, V. R. (1954). J. Hyg., Camb., 52, 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Ende, M., Turner, G. S., Selzer, G. & Naude, W. du T. (1953). S. Afr. med. J. 27, 975.Google Scholar