Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-31T19:46:22.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Warm-stage observations on the initial development of the avian tubercle bacillus cultivated in embryo extract

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

E. M. Brieger  and
Honor B. Fell
E. M. Brieger
Affiliation:
Papworth Village Settlement
Honor B. Fell
Affiliation:
Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge
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.

1. Avian tubercle bacilli were cultivated in centri- fuged embryo extract in large hanging-drop preparations.

2. Small groups of individual bacilli were studied undisturbed on a warm stage for several days.

3. The cultures grew very actively and several types of reproduction were observed, all of which were modifications of what was arbitrarily termed the ‘standard’ type.

4. In the ‘standard’ life cycle, which was that most commonly seen, the bacillus elongates during the first 24 hr. to form a filament several times its original length; this divides repeatedly to form a bunch of 20–30 filaments which on the 2nd or 3rd day break down into short rods, which continue to multiply slowly by ordinary binary fission. If the bacilli are subcultivated in fresh embryo extract the cycle is repeated but not otherwise.

5. Three forms of slow growth were seen: (a) The bacillus elongates, though very slowly, to form a long filament which does not divide. (b) The bacillus elongates to about twice its original length and then divides by simple binary fission, (c) The bacillus elongates and segments into short rods, but the intermediate stage of filamentous proliferation is greatly restricted.

6. Bacilli floating freely in the surface film of the drop often form what we have termed a ‘raft’ colony. In this form of development elongation of the rods and filamentous proliferation occur, but the return to the original short form is gradual and incomplete. The organisms grow in one plane and are arranged in a tidy mosaic.

7. The development of ‘mycelial’ forms was studied. A minority of the long filaments formed by the elongation of the rod-shaped bacilli do not break up into strings of daughter rods but continue to elongate rapidly into abnormally long threads; small buds appear at intervals along the thread and grow into primary branches on which secondary and tertiary branches form in the same way: finally a complex branching ‘mycelium’ is produced.

8. The ‘standard’ life cycle appears to be characteristic of rapid initial growth. The wide differences between our results and those of Kahn are probably due, at least in part, to the different cultural conditions used in the two investigations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , September 1945 , pp. 158 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1945

References

REFERENCES

Besançon, F. B. & Philibert, A. P. (1924). C.R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 90, 475.Google Scholar
Bruns, H. (1895). Zbl. Bakt. 17, 817.Google Scholar
Coppen-Jones, A. (1895). Zbl. Bakt. 17, 76.Google Scholar
Feldman, W. H. (1938). Avian Tuberculosis Infections, p. 35. London.Google Scholar
Fontes, A. C. (1939). Internat. Congr. for Microbiol., N.Y., 1940, p. 157.Google Scholar
Gardner, A. D. (1929). J. Path. Bact. 32, 115.Google Scholar
Graham-Smith, G. S. (1910). Parasitology, 3, 17.Google Scholar
Griffith, Stanley (1930). A System of Bacteriology in Relation to Medicine, 5, 156. London.Google Scholar
Griffith, Stanley (1941). J. Hyg., Camb., 41, 530.Google Scholar
Groh, E. (1933). Zbl. Bakt. 128, 353.Google Scholar
Kahn, Morton C. (1929). Amer. Rev. Tuberc. 20, 150.Google Scholar
Kahn, Morton C. (1932). Zbl. Bakt. 125, 451.Google Scholar
Kahn, Morton C. & Nonidez, J. F. (1936). Amer. Rev. Tuberc. 34, 3.Google Scholar
Karwacki, L. (1934). Proc. Conf. Intern. Union against Tuberc., Varsovie.Google Scholar
Kelly, C. D. & Rahn, O. (1932). J. Bact. 23, 147.Google Scholar
Lehmann, K. B., Neumann, R. & Breed, R. S. (1919). Text-book of Bacteriology. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
MacCarter, J. R. & Hastings, E. J. (1934). J. Bact. 27, 41.Google Scholar
Metschnikoff, E. (1888). Virchows Arch. 113, 63.Google Scholar
Miehe, H. (1909). Z. Hyg. InfektKr. 62, 131.Google Scholar
Much, H. (1931). Beitr. z. klin. d. Tuberk. 77, 60.Google Scholar
Nedelkowitch, J. (1936). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 57, 171.Google Scholar
Oerskov, J. (1923). Investigation into the Morphology of the Ray Fungi. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Oerskov, J. (1932). Zbl. Bakt. 123, 271.Google Scholar
Oerskov, J. (1932). Zbl. Bakt. 126, 580.Google Scholar
Pryce, D. M. (1941). J. Path. Bact. 53, 327.Google Scholar
Saenz, A. (1938). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 61, 662.Google Scholar
Soltys, M. A. (1942). J. Path. Bact. 54, 375.Google Scholar
Vaudremer, A. (1931). Beitr. z. klin. d. Tuberk. 77, 16.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. S. & Schwabacher, H. (1937). Tubercle, 18, 161.Google Scholar
Wyckoff, R. W. J. (1934). Rev. Tuberc. 24, 93.Google Scholar