AEM
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Phillips, A. W.
Right arrow Articles by Balish, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Phillips, A. W.
Right arrow Articles by Balish, E.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Phillips, A. W.
Right arrow Articles by Balish, E.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Appl Environ Microbiol. 1962 May; 10(3): 224-230

Rearing of Germfree and Monocontaminated Chicks in Rigid Plastic Isolators1

A. W. Phillips, H. R. Newcomb, R. Lachapelle and E. Balish2

Biological Research Laboratories, Department of Bacteriology and Botany, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York

ABSTRACT

A Plexiglas isolator for rearing germfree vertebrates is described. Plastic components were precut and finished by a Plexiglas supplier. This equipment is relatively inexpensive; moreover, neither special facilities nor skills are required in their construction. Advantages of this type of isolator are: readily dismantled for cleaning, durable, excellent visibility of the interior, and minimal maintenance. In 30 separate groups of animals, 27 of these yielded germfree chicks. Many of these chicks were reared germfree for 4 weeks; and several were maintained for about 2 months, without microbial contamination. Pure cultures of Candida albicans, Streptococcus faecalis, and Clostridium perfringens were established as monocontaminations in the intestinal tracts of chickens. In contrast, Alcaligenes faecalis ATCC 9220 failed to grow in the gut of chicks, following peroral administration of this organism. All chicks described were employed on other experiments, and were killed for various assays at times specified.


FOOTNOTES

2 Predoctoral fellow, U. S. Public Health Service.

1 These studies were supported in part by research grant E-2999 from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, U. S. Public Health Service.


Appl Environ Microbiol. 1962 May; 10(3): 224-230







Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
J. Bacteriol. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. Eukaryot. Cell All ASM Journals

Copyright © 1962 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.