首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of Experomental Medicine >A FURTHER NOTE UPON THE EXPERIMENTAL PRODUCTION OF LEPROSY IN THE MONKEY (MACACUS RHESUS), WITH A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE CULTURE EMPLOYED
【24h】

A FURTHER NOTE UPON THE EXPERIMENTAL PRODUCTION OF LEPROSY IN THE MONKEY (MACACUS RHESUS), WITH A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE CULTURE EMPLOYED

机译:关于实验性生产麻风猴(猕猴)的进一步注解,以及对所用文化的批判性研究

获取原文
       

摘要

Fatal leprosy, with all its clinical and pathological manifestations in man, may be experimentally induced in the monkey ( Macacus rhesus ) with a pure culture of the acid-fast bacillus cultivated by one of us (Duval) from a leprous lesion in man.To produce the disease experimentally, it seems necessary to give the animal repeated injections of large numbers of leprosy bacilli at given intervals for a period of months.That the infection is more likely to follow where sensitization is first established is definitely proven by the specific experiments that we have carried out upon a variety of laboratory animals. The first injection, we assume, sensitizes the animal and may consist of either killed or viable lepra bacilli.The necessity of first sensitizing the monkey and then giving repeated doses of viable organisms over a long period might explain the relative infrequency of the disease in man; at least, it offers an explanation of the fact that man rarely, if ever, contracts leprosy, although intimately associated for an indefinite period with those afflicted with the disease.The leprous lesions in the monkey are histologically indistinguishable from those in man and do not essentially resemble the specific lesion of tuberculosis, blastomycosis, or the lesions experimentally produced with saprophytic acid-fast species, since the appearance of large lepra cells and the arrangement of the bacilli in dense packets within these cells to form the so-called globi is a constant and characteristic feature for the experimental as well as the human lesion (figures 17, 18, and 19).The production of leprosy in the monkey proves conclusively that the acid-fast bacillus cultivated by one of us (Duval) from the human lesion is the Hansen bacillus and not some extraneous saprophyte, and that it is the etiological factor in human leprosy.In our experience, it has been extremely difficult to produce, in the lower animals, more than a transient localized lesion with human leprous material rich in the specific bacilli, unless the animal is first sensitized, when lesions histologically identical with those produced by pure cultures are easily induced. Therefore, it is natural to expect that cultures of Bacillus lepr? which are many generations removed from the parent stem are less likely to infect, unless given in larger doses on the ground of loss in virulence.When experimental leprous lesions occur in the internal organs, they are more often found in the liver and spleen, while the experimental lesions occasionally produced in the lower animals with some of the saprophyte species, such as the bacillus of timothy hay, Moeller's grass bacilli, etc., rarely, if ever, occur in these organs (Abbott and Gildersleeve). These authors did not find lesions in the liver and spleen in a single instance after inoculating forty-five rabbits intravenously with large doses of the "confusing group." Furthermore, the cell picture and the appearance and arrangement of these bacilli in the lesions in no way resemble experimental leprosy (H?lscher).It is no indication that a given culture is not the Hansen bacillus because the individual organisms differ in size and shape from those in the tissues, since it is a well known fact that marked variations in morphology are common for many bacterial species under natural and artificial conditions. One of us (Couret) has already pointed out that there is a wide variation in morphology for Bacillus lepr? under different environments. The experimental work serves not only to emphasize this fact, but is proof that a transformation from the slender beaded rods of the tissues to solidly staining diplococcoid forms of culture does occur for Bacillus lepr? ; and, conversely, that the coccoid forms of culture may again assume the slender beaded appearance by passage through warm-blooded animals.
机译:致命的麻风病在人类中具有所有的临床和病理表现,可以用我们中的一个人(Duval)从人的麻风病病灶中培养的耐酸杆菌的纯培养物在猴(Macacus rhesus)中通过实验诱导。通过实验产生这种疾病,似乎有必要在给定的时间间隔内连续几个月给动物重复注射大量麻风杆菌,这种感染更可能在首次建立敏化作用后发生,具体实验明确证明:我们已经对各种实验动物进行了研究。我们认为第一次注射会使动物过敏,可能由被杀死的或活的麻风杆菌组成。首先对猴子致敏,然后在很长一段时间内重复给予活菌剂量的必要性,可能解释了人类疾病的相对发生频率;至少,它解释了这样一个事实,即尽管有不确定的时期与患病者密切相关,但人类极少(即使有过)患麻风病。从组织学上看,猴的麻风病与人类的麻风病没有区别,并且不会由于大的Lepra细胞的出现和细菌在这些细胞内以致密的包囊形式排列以形成所谓的球状疱疹,因此基本上类似于结核,芽孢杆菌病或用腐生酸抗性物种实验产生的病变的特定病变。实验性和人类病变的恒定和特征性特征(图17、18和19)。猴麻风的产生最终证明我们中的一个人(杜瓦尔)从人类病变中培育的耐酸杆菌是汉森氏杆菌,而不是一些外来的腐生菌,并且是人类麻风病的病因。根据我们的经验,很难在下层动物中,除了容易引起与纯培养物产生的组织学相同的病灶外,除非首先使动物致敏,否则用富含特定细菌的人麻风病材料会产生比瞬时病灶更多的病灶。因此,自然而然地会想到狂犬芽孢杆菌的培养?除非以致病力丧失为大剂量给予,否则从亲本茎中去除了许多世代后,它们的感染可能性较小。当实验性麻风病病变发生在内脏中时,它们更常见于肝脏和脾脏中,而有时在下部动物中会产生实验性病害,其中有些腐生菌,例如蒂莫西干草芽孢杆菌,穆勒草杆菌等,很少在这些器官中发生(Abbott和Gildersleeve)。这些作者在静脉内接种45只大剂量“混淆组”的兔子后,没有一次在肝脏和脾脏中发现病变。此外,这些细菌在病灶中的细胞图片以及外观和排列与实验性麻风病(H?lscher)完全不同。这并不表示给定的培养物不是汉森氏杆菌,因为各个生物体的大小和形状不同因为众所周知的事实是,在自然和人工条件下,许多细菌物种在形态上都有明显的变化,这是众所周知的事实。我们中的一位(Couret)已经指出,Bacillus lepr?的形态存在很大差异。在不同的环境下。实验工作不仅要强调这一事实,而且是否证明麻风芽孢杆菌确实发生了从细长的串珠状杆状组织到固色双球菌培养物的转变? ;相反地​​,球状培养物可以通过温血动物而再次呈现细长的串珠外观。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号