HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wang, S.-P. Articles by Grayston, J. T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wang, S.-P. Articles by Grayston, J. T.

Classification of Trachoma Virus Strains by Protection of Mice from Toxic Death¹

From the United States Naval Medical Research Unit #2, Taipei, Taiwan

Abstract

Twenty-nine trachoma virus strains isolated on Taiwan and nine trachoma strains and two inclusion conjunctivitis strains obtained from other areas of the world have been tested in mice for cross-protection against intravenous toxicity. Crude yolk sac suspensions of these TRIC viruses were used both for protection and challenge. Protection was produced by intravenous injection of one-third and then two-thirds a minimum lethal toxic dose 14 and 7 days prior to challenge. All 29 of the Taiwan trachoma strains fell into one of two cross-protecting groups designated as the TW-1 and TW-3 groups. Three trachoma strains from New Delhi protected against each other and members of the TW-3 group. Two trachoma strains from Apache Indians in Arizona cross-protected with the TW-1 group. A Saudi Arabia and a Gambia trachoma strain protected against each other but not against the other strains tested. Two trachoma and two inclusion conjunctivitis strains failed to cross-protect with any strain. Therefore, seven different cross-protecting types were demonstrated. It is concluded that the total number of different groups of TRIC virus strains in the mouse toxicity prevention test are not yet known, but that in a given geographic area (as exemplified by Taiwan with two groups) the number of different groups is limited.

Footnotes

¹ This study was supported in part by funds under Public Law 480, Section 104(c), in part by the Office of Naval Research, contract Nonr-2121 (07) with the University of Chicago, and in part by Research Grant B-3144 from the Institute of Neurologic Diseases and Blindness, National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service with the University of Washington. The opinions and assertions contained herein are those of the authors and are not to be construed as official or reflecting the views of the Navy Department or the Naval Service at large.

Reprint requests should be addressed to the Commanding Officer, NAMRU-2, Box 14, APO 63, San Francisco, California.

² Present address: Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Washington, School of Medicine, Seattle 5, Washington.