Morphological, biochemical, antigenic, and cytochemical relationships among Haemophilus somnus, Haemophilus agni, Haemophilus haemoglobinophilus, Histophilus ovis, and Actinobacillus seminis

L R Stephens, J D Humphrey, P B Little, D A Barnum, L R Stephens, J D Humphrey, P B Little, D A Barnum

Abstract

Morphology, biochemical reactions, pigmentation, antigens, and cell envelope proteins were examined in 12 strains of Haemophilus somnus, Haemophilus agni, Histophilus ovis, and Actinobacillus seminis. All of the strains except A. seminis are related and are considered as a single Haemophilus-Histophilus (HH) group. In immunodiffusion tests, HH group bacteria had at least two antigens common to all members of the group, and sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis showed that they have similar cell envelope protein profiles. A quantitatively variable yellow pigment with absorption maxima of 430 to 435 nm was present in strains of H. somnus and H. agni. The HH group did not produce catalase and grew only in air containing 10% CO2. Of 10 HH group bacteria, 9 required thiamine monophosphate for growth. A. seminis was distinguished from the HH group by its lack of yellow pigment, production of catalase, growth in air, lack of a thiamine monophosphate requirement, and different cell envelope protein profile. In gel immunodiffusion tests, A. seminis antigens produced two lines of partial identity with the HH group when antiserum against H. somnus was used. Reference strains of Haemophilus influenzae, Actinobacillus lignieresii, and Haemophilus haemoglobinophilus were compared with the test strains. In immunodiffusion tests, a single antigen was found to be common to H. haemoglobinophilus, A. seminis, and the HH group. No similarities between any of the test strains and H. influenzae or A. lignieresii were noted. The close relationship of H. somnus, H. agni, and Histophilus ovis suggests that these unofficially named bacteria may belong to a single taxon.

References

    1. Aust Vet J. 1970 Oct;46(10):515
    1. Res Vet Sci. 1982 Jan;32(1):27-34
    1. J Gen Microbiol. 1974 Oct;84(2):399-402
    1. Nature. 1970 Aug 15;227(5259):680-5
    1. Can Vet J. 1981 Dec;22(12):395-6
    1. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand B Microbiol Immunol. 1974 Dec;82(6):835-42
    1. Am J Vet Res. 1958 Jul;19(72):645-54
    1. Vet Rec. 1977 Feb 12;100(7):126-7
    1. Am J Vet Res. 1981 Mar;42(3):468-73
    1. Aust Vet J. 1966 Dec;42(12):457-8
    1. J Gen Microbiol. 1975 Apr;87(2):333-42
    1. Onderstepoort J Vet Res. 1979 Sep;46(3):141-8
    1. Can J Comp Med. 1982 Apr;46(2):215-7
    1. Aust Vet J. 1978 Sep;54(9):423-5
    1. Am J Vet Res. 1970 Jun;31(6):1017-22
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1981 Aug;14(2):178-83
    1. Am J Vet Res. 1960 Mar;21:403-9
    1. Aust Vet J. 1977 Mar;53(3):124-7
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1982 Jun;15(6):1009-15
    1. Zentralbl Bakteriol A. 1980;246(4):512-40
    1. Vet Pathol. 1978 Sep;15(5):631-7
    1. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1966 Jan 15;148(2):162-6
    1. Am J Vet Res. 1982 May;43(5):791-5
    1. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1981 Feb 15;178(4):378-84
    1. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 1981 Feb;123(2):79-88
    1. Can Vet J. 1981 Nov;22(11):361-2
    1. Can J Comp Med. 1981 Apr;45(2):103-12
    1. Can J Comp Med. 1977 Oct;41(4):380-8

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe