Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-8l2sj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T06:50:26.652Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

V.—The Mode of Multiplication of the Rous No. I Sarcoma Virus*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

J. G. Carr
J. G. Carr
Affiliation:
Poultry Research Centre, Edinburgh, 9.
Get access

Synopsis

Known amounts of the Rous No. 1 sarcoma virus were injected into the legs of chicks. The birds were killed, the legs extracted, and the virus content determined at intervals. Controls showed complete recovery of the virus by the methods used. After 16 hours the amount of virus was 1 per cent, or less of the injected amount, and this low level remained until about 70 hours, when an increased amount of virus suddenly appeared. This is taken to imply that, like the necrotising viruses, those of the fowl sarcoma multiply in the cell in a non-infective and probably disaggregated form. These times agree well with previous histological findings. The implications of such a method of reproduction are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences , Volume 65 , Issue 1 , 1953 , pp. 66 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1953

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 to Literature

Andrewes, C. H., 1939. “Latent Virus Infections and their possible Relevance to the Cancer Problem”, Proc. R. Soc. Med., XXXIII, 75–91.Google Scholar
Bawden, F. C., and Pirie, N. W., 1945. “The Separation and Properties of Tobacco Mosaic Virus in different States of Aggregation”, Brit. Journ. Exp. Path., XXVI, 294–312.Google Scholar
Bawden, F. C., and Pirie, N. W., 1950. “Some Properties Affecting the Activation of Virus Preparations made from Tobacco Leaves infected with a Tobacco Necrosis Virus”, Journ. Gen. Microbiol., IV, 464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernkopf, H., 1949. “Cultivation of Influenza in the Chorio-Allantoic Membrane of Deembryonated Eggs”, Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med., LXXII, 680–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, J. G., 1947. “An Unexplained Discrepancy between the Actual and Expected Yield of Virus from Tumours and its Implications”, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., B, LXII, 243–249.Google Scholar
Carr, J. G., and Harris, R. J. C., 1951. “The Preparation and Assay of the Rous No. 1 Sarcoma Agent”, Brit. Journ. Cancer, V, 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claude, A., Porter, K. R., and Pickels, E., 1947. “Electron Microscope Study of Chicken Tumor Cells”, Cancer Res., VII, 421—427.Google Scholar
Delbruck, M., 1945. “The Burst Size Distribution in the Growth of Bacterial Viruses”, Journ. Bad., L, 131–142.Google Scholar
Duran-Reynals, F., and Murphy, J. B., 1929. “Properties of the Causative Agent of a Chicken Tumor. I. The Specific Fixation by Tissues of Susceptible Animals”, Journ. Exp. Med., L, 315–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, A. W., Blyth, J. S. S., and Carr, J. G., 1948. “Indications of the Heritable Nature of Non-susceptibility to Rous Sarcoma in Fowls”, Brit. Journ. Cancer, 11, 135–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henle, W., and Henle, G., 1949. “Studies on Host-Virus Interactions in the Chick Embryo—Influenza Virus System. III. Development of Infectivity, Hemagglutination, and Complement Fixation Activity during the First Infectious Cycle”, Journ. Exp. Med., XC, 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoyle, L., 1948. “The Growth Cycle of Influenza Virus A. A Study of the Relations between Virus, Soluble Antigen and Host Cells in Eggs Inoculated with Influenza Virus”, Brit. Journ. Exp. Path., XXIX, 390–399.Google Scholar
Kidd, J. G., 1942. “The Detection of a ‘Masked’ Virus (Shope Papilloma Virus) by Means of Immunisation”, Journ. Exp. Med., LXXIV, 321–329.Google Scholar
Levine, M., 1939. “The Cytology of the Tumor Cell in the Rous Chicken Sarcoma”, Amer. Journ. Cancer, XXXVI, 276–302, 386–430, 581–602; XXXVII, 69–107.Google Scholar
Luria, S. E., 1947. “Reactivation of Irradiated Bacteriophage by Transfer of Self-producing Units”, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. Wash., XXXIII, 253–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luria, S. E., and Latarjet, R., 1947. “Ultra-violet Irradiation of Bacteriophage during Intracellular Growth”, Journ. Bad., LIII, 149–161.Google Scholar
Von Magnus, P., 1951. “Propagation of the PR8 Strain of Influenza A Virus in Chick Embryos. II. The Formation of ‘Incomplete’ Virus following Inoculation of large Doses of Seed Virus”, Act. Path. Microbiol., XXVIII, 278–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markham, R., and Smith, J. D., 1949. “Studies on the Virus of Turnip-Yellow Mosaic”, Parasitology, XXXIX, 330–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauer, G., 1939. “Die Histogenese des Rous-Sarkoms Nr. I”, Zeits. Krebsforsch., XLVIII, 58–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberling, Ch., Bernhard, W., Guérin, M., and Harel, J., 1950. “Images de cellules cancéreuses au microscope électronique”, Bull. Cancer, XXXVII, 97–109.Google Scholar
Saunders, F. K., 1952. “Multiplication Cycles in Neurotropic Viruses”, Symposium on the Nature of Virus Multiplication, Cambridge.Google Scholar