Clostridium Putrificum Ii. Morphological, Cultural and Biochemical Study

Abstract

Interest in this peculiar but extremely important organism has increased within the past few years. Since Sturges and Rettger (1919) brought out again the outstanding features of this anaerobe, among them that of delayed development in pure culture, investigators have expressed widely different views. An example of the uncertainty concerning the entity of the organism in question is given by the British Medical Research Committee. In their first report on the classification and study of the anaerobes found in war wounds (Special Report Series, No. 12, 1917) certain cultural reactions attributed to it are given rather fully and there is every reason to assume that the committee at that time believed in the existence of a definite species which they were calling Bacillus putrificus. Later (1919) in their Special Report Series, No. 39., they do not make reference to it as a distinct species, but infer that "many of the cultures of B. putrificus, so-called, are really mixtures of B. cochlearius or B. tertius with B. sporogenes." They make no effort to list the cultural characters of the organism, and simply offer a short review of the work of previous investigators, which does not identify it in any way as a distinct species. The Lister Institute (London) does not list cultures of C. putrificum in its National Collection of Type Cultures (1922) and the writers were unable to procure from them any cultures of this organism for comparative studies. Hall has, in a way, shown equal uncertainty in regard to the identity of C. putrificum. In the differential key to the sporulat-375 on September 27, 2020 by guest http://jb.asm.org/ Downloaded from GEORGE F. REDDISH AND LEO F. RETTGER ing obligate anaerobes given in Jordan's General Bacteriology, this key being taken from some of Hall's unpublished data, Jordan puts C. putrificum in a group separate from C. cochlearius,

A Taxonomic Study of“Clostridium putrificum”and its establishment as a Definite Entity—Clostridium lentoputrescens, Nov. Spec

“…CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS Protein media. Since Reddish and Rettger (1923) have described the action of "Cl. putrificum" in egg-meat medium, it does not appear necessary to present a complete repetition here.…”

“…putrificum Bienstock. The generic term, Clostridium, was applied merely to be consistent with current anaerobic nomenclature. This comprehensive study, as well as the subsequent work of Reddish (1923Reddish ( , 1924, served to establish "Cl. putrificum" as a definite species.…”

“…Since subsequent study by Reddish and Rettger (1923) revealed the ability of this anaerobe to decompose native protein, it appeared to the present writers that if this property were exploited, with modern methods for creating anaerobic conditions, the isolation of "Cl. putrificum" might be readily accomplished.…”

“…to a putrefactive anaerobe which was first isolated by them in 1919, and studied in greater detail by Reddish and Rettger (1921, 1923. These authors believed their organism to be identical with Bienstock's B. putrificus and, largely through the influence of their studies, the species "Cl.…”

“…Henry (1916Henry ( -1917, McIntosh and Fildes (1917), the British Medical Research Committee (1919), Kendall, Day and Walker (1922) and recently Topley and Wilson (1929) have also expressed some doubt as to the existence of B. putrificus (Bienstock). Reddish and Rettger (1921, 1923 compared the anaerobe isolated by Sturges and Rettger (1919) with the inadequate published descriptions of B. putrificus Bienstock, and concluded that the two organisms were identical and that they should be designated as Cl. putrificum Bienstock. The generic term, Clostridium, was applied merely to be consistent with current anaerobic nomenclature.…”