Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T02:28:29.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XXXVIII. First Report on Investigations into Plague Vaccines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Sydney Rowland
Sydney Rowland
Affiliation:
Of the Lister Institute.
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.

The primary source from which all vaccines are derived is a culture of the organism against infection by which it is desired to protect the animal. The culture may be used as a vaccine either alive or dead.- We are concerned here only with the latter. Such a killed culture comprises the organism itself and the products of its metabolism, together with part or the whole of the culture medium in which it has grown. This mixture may be called a whole vaccine. By appropriate treatment a “whole vaccine,” may be deprived of some or all of such constituents as are not concerned in bringing about, when inoculated into animals, those changes which constitute protection. Such a vaccine may be called a derived vaccine in the case when all the immaterial constituents are not removed, the term antigen being reserved to designate that substance which alone is concerned in conferring protection. The main object of this investigation is the preparation of a derived vaccine with the hope that the antigen may ultimately be isolated.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 10 , Issue 3: Extra “Plague Number” , November 1910 , pp. 536 - 565
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1910

References

page 537 note 1 Yersin, , Calmette, and Borrel, , Ann. de l'inst. Pasteur, 1897.Google Scholar

page 537 note 2 Kolle, , Deutsche Med. Woch., 1897.Google Scholar

page 537 note 3 Wyssokowitz, and Zabolotny, , Ann. de l'inst. Pasteur, 1897.Google Scholar

page 537 note 4 Haffkine, , Indian Med. Gaz., 1897; Ref. nach Schottelius, Hygien. Rundschau, 1901, No. 3 ff.Google Scholar

page 537 note 5 Gabritschewsky, , Ref. Centralbl. f. Bakt. 1898; Russiches, Archiv f. Pathol. klin. Med. u. Bakt., 1897.Google Scholar

page 537 note 6 Gaffky, , Pfeiffer, , Sticker, und Dieudonne, , Arbeiten aus dem Kaiserlich. Gesundheitsamt, 1899, Bd. XVI.Google Scholar

page 537 note 7 Cited by Tavel, , Glucksman, Krumbein u., Zeits. f. Hygiene, 1902, Bd. XL. p. 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 538 note 1 Strong, , Philippine Journ. of Science, 1906, p. 182, and 1907, p. 155Google Scholar

page 538 note 2 Lustig, and Galeotti, , Deutsche Med. Woch., 1897, pp. 23, 227 and 289.Google Scholar

page 538 note 3 Zeitsch. f. Hyg. u. Infektionskrankh., Leipzig, 1902, xl. p. 239.Google Scholar

page 538 note 4 Terni and Bandi, Ibid., 1900, xxvi. p. 463; Rev. d. Hyg., Paris, 1900, xxii. p. 62.

page 538 note 5 Hueppe, and Kikuchi, , Cent. f. Bakt. Orig., 1905, L. p. 519.Google Scholar

page 539 note 1 Klein, , Rep. to Loc. Gov. Board on a new Plague prophylactic, London, 1906Google Scholar; Brit. Med. Journal, 1906, p. 155Google Scholar.

page 539 note 2 Wallannah, , Ann. de I' Inst. Pasteur, 1905, ix. p. 589.Google Scholar

page 539 note 3 Shiga, , Ber. über die Pest in Kobe und Osaka, Tokio, 1900, p. 54.Google Scholar

page 539 note 4 Besredka, , Ann. de I' Inst. Pasteur, 1902, xvi. p. 918.,Google Scholar

page 539 note 5 Gosio, , Zeitsch. f. Hyg. u. Infektionskrankh., Leipzig, 1905, L. p. 519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 539 note 6 Besredka, , Ann. de I' Inst. Pasteur, 1905, xix. p. 479.Google Scholar

page 539 note 7 Besredka, Ibid., 1906, xx. p. 304.

page 540 note 1 Markl, , Ann. de I' Inst. Pasteur, 1898, xxiv.Google Scholar; Wien. Med. Woch., 1900Google Scholar; Zeit. für Hyg., 1901, xxxvii.Google Scholar

page 540 note 2 Dean, , Studies in Pathology in celebration of the Quater Centenary of the Univ. Aberdeen, Aberdeen, 1906.Google Scholar

page 541 note 1 Macfadyen, and Rowland, , Bet. der Deut. chem. Get. 1900, xxiiiGoogle Scholar; Proc. Roy. Soc., London, LXXI. p. 77Google Scholar; Cent, für Bact. i., xxxv. p. 415.Google Scholar

page 545 note 1 Pearson, , Phil. Mag., 1907, pp. 365–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 545 note 2 Pearson, Ibid., 1900, pp. 157–175; Elderton, Biometrika, i. p. 155. 1902.

page 546 note 1 Todhunter, , History of the Theory of Probability, Chapter on Laplace; Pearson, 1907, op. cit.Google Scholar

page 546 note 2 These are the chances against a deviation occurring in a given direction; the chance against, e.g. a positive deviation of twice the probable error or more is 10 to 1; the chance against a deviation of this order, but either positive or negative, is 4·5 to 1.

page 548 note 1 The statement by Pick (Kraus and Levaditi, Handbuch der Technik und Methodik der Immunitätsforschung, Bd. i. p. 353) to the effect that chloroform destroyed the antigen of the plague bacillus and was therefore not available for the preparation of a vaccine has not been confirmed.

page 548 note 2 Yersin, , Calmette and Borrel, Ann. de I' Inst. Pasteur, 1895.Google Scholar

page 549 note 1 Wyssokowitz, and Zabolotny, , Ann. de l' Inst. Pasteur, 1897.Google Scholar

page 549 note 2 German Plague Commission, loc. cit.Google Scholar

page 549 note 3 Strong, , Philippine Journ. of Science, 1907, ii. 3.Google Scholar

page 549 note 4 Journal of Hygiene, viii. (1908), 335.Google Scholar

page 564 note 1 Dean, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

page 564 note 2 Markl, , loc. cit.Google Scholar