Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wpx84 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T12:13:43.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Dose-Response Relationship Between Influenza Viruses and the Surviving Allantois

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

S. Fazekas de St Groth  and
D. O. White
S. Fazekas de St Groth
Affiliation:
The Department of Microbiology, The John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
D. O. White
Affiliation:
The Department of Microbiology, The John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
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.

It is shown that bits of allantois-on-shell cut from any one egg do not differ either in susceptibility to infection by influenza viruses or in yield of haemagglutinin. For this reason the dose-response curve within any egg is Poissonian.

Bits cut from different eggs vary both in susceptibility and in haemagglutinin yield. Unlike in whole eggs however, the scatter is so small that it can be demonstrated only by refined tests done on a large number of subjects. For practical purposes the dose-response curve may still be taken as Poissonian.

Susceptibility and yield vary independently of one another.

The data are used to define the accuracy of infectivity tests in bits of allantois-on-shell; the expected errors are given both for straight replication and for tests done with different reagents, by different operators, or at different times.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 56 , Issue 4 , December 1958 , pp. 523 - 534
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1958

References

Armitage, P. & Spicer, C. C. (1956). J. Hyg., Camb., 54, 401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, H. B. & Isaacs, A. (1954). J. gen. Microbiol. 10, 457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazekas de St Groth, S. (1955). J. Hyg., Camb., 53, 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazekas de St Groth, S. & Graham, D. M. (1954). Brit. J. exp. Path. 35, 60.Google Scholar
Fazekas de St Groth, S. & Moran, P. A. P. (1955). J. Hyg., Camb., 53, 291.Google Scholar
Fazekas de St Groth, S. & White, D. O. (1958a). J. Hyg., Camb., 56, 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazekas de St Groth, S. & White, D. O. (1958c). J. Hyg., Camb., 56, 535.Google Scholar
Finter, N. B. & Armitage, P. (1957). J. Hyg., Camb., 55, 434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulton, F. & Armitage, P. (1951). J. Hyg., Camb., 49, 247.Google Scholar
Irwin, J. O. (1937). J. Roy. stat. Soc., Supp. 4, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mather, K. (1949). Biometrics, 5, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, P. A. P. (1954a). J. Hyg., Camb., 52, 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, P. A. P. (1954b). J. Hyg., Camb., 52, 444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, P. A. P. (1955). J. Hyg., Camb., 53, 143.Google Scholar
Reed, L. J. & Muench, H. (1938). Amer. J. Hyg. 27, 493.Google Scholar
White, D. O. & Fazekas de St Groth, S. (1959). J. Hyg., Camb. (in the Press).Google Scholar