1960
DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(60)91046-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Device for the Identification of Microorganisms

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

1960
1960
1972
1972

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The use of a prototype Determinator (Cowan & Steel, 1960) was of help in sorting these strains into the different categories, and when this was done the 176 strains gave the reactions shown in Table 1 put into the nearest and the number of discrepancies recorded. When a character was described as d it could not contribute to the discrepancies shown by a strain.…”
Section: No Of Strains Fimbriaementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The use of a prototype Determinator (Cowan & Steel, 1960) was of help in sorting these strains into the different categories, and when this was done the 176 strains gave the reactions shown in Table 1 put into the nearest and the number of discrepancies recorded. When a character was described as d it could not contribute to the discrepancies shown by a strain.…”
Section: No Of Strains Fimbriaementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The comparison of characters is simple only as long as the known characters of the different units are few; mechanical devices help when a moderate number of characters is known (Cowan & Steel, 1960, but when many characters are to be compared a computer becomes invaluable, if not essential (Sneath, 19573). The 8.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This may be because we have a strain that is atypical in some respects, or one that is intermediate between two groups, or perhaps our unknown belongs to a group far from any that we have in our table. Cowan and Steel (1965) give extensive tables for bacteria of medical interest. We can improve the power of our scheme by calculating the degree of match between our unknown and the various groups, and this leads naturally to computer methods.…”
Section: Identificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is worth noting that in conventional keys for higher organisms the number of characters, m, required to identify T groups is usually such that m about equals T, so that the ratio mIT is around 1.0. In the tables of Cowan and Steel (1965), which must represent about the most efficient scheme for bacteria without a computer, mIT is on the average 1 2, and is never much less than 1, even for the best known groups.…”
Section: Identificationmentioning
confidence: 99%