Motility of Clostridium Bifermentans

Sturges, W. S.; Drake, E. T.

doi:10.1093/infdis/42.5.446

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Presence of the H factor in Clostridium bifermentans is consistent with its motility and presence of flagella, as was shown by Sturges and Drake in 1928. This serological evidence, coupled with the failure of Drake and Sturges and others to find valid morphological and physiological differences between strains of so-called Clostridium bifernentar= and Cl08otidium centrosporogenes, would indicate that the concept of a single species, Clostridium bifermentans, is adequate.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

“…506 of the Lister Institute, originally contributed by M. Robertson. The possibility of motility in C. bifermentans seems not to have been questioned again until Sturges and Drake (1928) attempted to sort out their collection of strains of that general group, in comparison with certain type strains of each species furnished by Hall. They noted in some cases a rapid loss of motility during examination and therefore used the capillary tube technique for the protection of delicate anaerobes against aeration during the test of motility.…”

Section: Elizabeth Mccoy and L S Mcclungmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Studies on Anaerobic Bacteria

McCoy

McClung

1936

J Bacteriol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The systematic position, or right to specific rank, of the anaerobic bacillus, Clostridium centrosporogenes, has been somewhat insecure, since its conception as Bacillus centrosporogenes by Hall in 1922. Originally created to cover 4 strains resembling Clostridium bifermentans in many respects, the new species was recorded as actively motile at 8 hours, though non-motile at 24 hours. Deep colonies of C. centrosporogenes in meat infusion agar were described as more fluffy and diffuse, but this character was recognized as affected by consistency of the agar. Failure of C. centrosporogenes to react in an agglutinative serum for one strain of C. bifermentans was also cited. These last points of difference were considered minor and only motility was used in separation of C. bifermentan8 and C. centrosporogenes in Hall's key to anaerobes. Robertson (1929) questioned the specific rank of C. centrosporogenes, if separation from C. bifermentarm were to rest upon motility alone. In considering the position of the new species Hall recognized its physiological likeness to Clost7idium sporogenes but decided against close affinity because of the central position of its spores and its positive glycerol fermentation. Nevertheless, Kahn (1924) and Weinberg and Ginsbourg (1927) suggested that the new culture was merely a variant of C. sporogenes. This possibility was considered by Drake and Sturges (1929) in a study of

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

Section: Elizabeth Mccoy and L S Mcclungmentioning

confidence: 99%