This Article Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Fine, D. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Fine, D. H. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Dr. Theodor Rosebury: Grandfather of Modern Oral Microbiology

Department of Oral Biology, Center for Oral Infectious Diseases, New Jersey Dental School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, 185 South Orange Avenue, Newark, NJ 07103, USA; finedh{at}umdnj.edu

Martin Taubman, Editor

Key Words: Oral microbiology • biological warfare • spirochetes • anaerobic chamber

DR. THEODOR ROSEBURY: "PRE-EMINENT ORAL MICROBIOLOGIST OF HIS ERA"

(from Socransky and Haffajee, 2005)

I first became aware of Ted Rosebury in 1968, when, as a young Assistant Professor in Periodontology at the University of Pittsburgh, I discovered a book entitled Microorganisms Indigenous to Man (Rosebury, 1962). I still refer to this book and consider it a classic. My next encounter with Rosebury took place in 1971, while, as a post-doctoral student at Columbia University, I discovered what I thought to be an oral spirochete in the intestine of a Rhesus monkey. Because I stood alone in that belief, I decided to develop an antibody to oral spirochetes to prove the point one way or another (Kaye et al., 1975). In my efforts to identify the organism, I contacted the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta to inquire about their spirochete collection. When I asked about obtaining a few of their oral spirochetes, I was told that I could have as many as I wanted, because the collection actually belonged to Columbia University. I was told that Dr. Theodor Rosebury, a world authority on the growth and caring of oral spirochetes, had donated the collection to the CDC when he retired from academics. At home that evening, I told the story to my wife and her mother. To my surprise, my mother-in-law said that she knew Rosebury and his brother Fred, that they were family friends, and that my wife’s uncle, Dr. Samuel Greenberg, had done research in Rosebury’s lab in the ‘30s and ‘40s!

FIRST MEETING

My first three years at Columbia were spent as a post-doctoral student in the Pathology Department in the Medical School. I also had a joint appointment in the Department of Preventive Dentistry, whose head was Dr. Irwin Mandel, my mentor in dental research, and world-renowned for his work on saliva, plaque, caries, calculus, and preventive dentistry (Baum et al., 1997). Dr. Mandel did not work in Rosebury’s lab, but had studied with him when he attended Columbia Dental School in the 1940s. In 1971, the IADR meeting was in Chicago. After hearing the spirochete story, and realizing that we would be in Chicago and that Rosebury was living in Chicago, Irwin decided to arrange for a visit to Rosebury’s home. The visit was to include my wife, Dr. Solon A. Ellison and Dr. Mandel (both of whom had been Rosebury’s students at Columbia Dental School), and me. At that time, Dr. Ellison was the director and Chair of the Oral Biology Department at SUNY Buffalo (Emmings, 1999). I had heard that, since his retirement, Rosebury had dedicated himself to writing, cabinetmaking, and music. I had heard that he excelled in each area, and had become a consummate cabinetmaker, a renowned writer, and an exceptionally gifted flutist. It was with great anticipation that I arrived at the house of this revered microbiologist. Rosebury greeted his students, Mandel and Ellison, warmly. Dr. Mandel introduced my wife and me to Dr. Rosebury and reported that Rosebury had known several members of my wife’s family and that her uncle Sam had worked in his laboratory. Rosebury expressed fond memories of Sam and the research they had done together and invited us to come up to his attic, where he had his reference library. It was truly remarkable to see the extent of his reference card catalogue, considering that he had retired from academics several years before. The card catalogue consisted of thousands of meticulously labeled 3 x 5 index cards in a space equivalent to a small university library. He then located a card that catalogued an article he had published with my wife’s uncle in the Journal of Dental Research, entitled "Studies of lactobacilli in relation to caries in rats. II. Attempt to immunize rats on caries producing diets against lactobacilli" (Rosebury et al., 1934). I later discovered that caries vaccine scientists refer to this article as one of the first papers that attempted to document a vaccine developed to a caries-producing organism.

WHO WAS THEODOR ROSEBURY?

Ted Rosebury was born in London on August 10, 1904. His family moved to the United States when he was six, and he became a naturalized citizen when he was 12 years old. He attended the University of Pennsylvania, where he received his DDS in 1928. In his own words, while in his junior year of dental school, he and a fellow dental student "read and studied (Bulletin Number Nineteen - A survey of dental education in the United States and Canada - conducted by Dr. William J. Gies and published in 1926 by The Carnegie Foundation) with intense interest....It is incidental that through my interest in the Bulletin I came to know Dr. Gies, to win a Fellowship in Biological Chemistry in his name at Columbia University, and thus to derive from him the personal guidance and inspiration that led me into a career in dental research and teaching" (Rosebury, 1957) (Fig. 1). After his fellowship, he became an instructor in the Department of Bacteriology in the College of Physicians and Surgeons, although, for most of the 1930s, his research focused on the biochemical and nutritional aspects of dental caries (Debus, 1968). Of significance was his collaboration with Dr. Leuman M. Waugh, who donated $100,000 of his own money to Columbia Dental School in support of his epidemiological studies of dental caries in the Eskimos of Labrador and Alaska (Kurtz, 1978). Dr. Waugh had made the observation that Eskimos who lived on their natural diet had no caries, but those who had access to the "Americanized" diet did have caries. From 1924 to 1939, he and his collaborators, who included Dr. Maxwell Karshan, a biochemist, and Ted Rosebury, formulated a hypothesis that the caries rate of the Eskimos showed a direct correlation with the distance the Eskimos were from the US trading post (Rosebury and Waugh, 1939). Thus, the closer the Eskimos were to the trading post, the more access they had to refined sugars, pilot bread, or ship’s biscuits, and the more caries they had (Rosebury and Karshan, 1939). These studies showed the effect of impactable carbohydrates on caries. In Dr. Waugh’s own words, "the American Eskimo is veritably paying for his civilization with his teeth" (Waugh, 1932). Throughout Rosebury’s career, he looked at nutrition as a key element in survival, although his center of attention changed from human to microbial nutrition. This new line of investigation pointed Rosebury in a direction that dealt with the care and feeding of micro-organisms, as opposed to humans. The relationship of nutrition and immunological stress on the "indigenous" members of our microflora to health and disease became the main focus of his career. His early research on caries examined nutritional and immunological aspects on Lactobacillus and its ability to produce acid and demineralize enamel, with a rat model used for extrapolation from the Eskimo studies (Rosebury et al., 1934).

View larger version (101K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Photograph of a group of researchers who attended a symposium on Dental Caries held in Pittsburgh, PA, on June 23, 1932, under the auspices of the local Section of the IADR. From left to right: Dr. John Enright, Mellon Institute; Dr. Theodor Rosebury, Columbia University; Major F.E. Rodriguez, Ann Arbor, MI; Dr. Russell Bunting, University of Michigan; Dr. William Gies, Columbia University; Dr. Edward Hatton, Northwestern University; Dr. H.E. Friesell, University of Pittsburgh; and Dr. Philip Jay, University of Michigan.

View larger version (173K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Dr. Rosebury in his laboratory, the period where investigation led to exploration of fusospirochetal infection in rabbits, circa the late 1940s.

Two students working on ANUG and variations on this model, Dr. Solon A. Ellison and Dr. J.B. MacDonald, went on to train a group of the most prominent dental researchers in modern-day dental microbiology and immunology in the USA.

The Ellison Line
Dr. Ellison got his PhD at Columbia, first working with Rosebury and then with Dr. Harry M. Rose (Rosebury et al., 1951). He went from Columbia to SUNY Buffalo, where he started and headed the Department of Oral Biology that included Drs. Todd Evans, Robert Genco, Joe Gong, Ernest Hausmann, Paul Mashimo, Chet DeLuca, Bill Miller, Zouhair Atassi, and Peter Staple. He started and administered the first PhD program in Oral Biology. Researchers trained in that department include but are not limited to: Drs. Pam Baker, Casey Chen, Michael Crone, Fred Emmings, Violet Haraszthy, Mark Herzberg, Michael Levine, Thomas Macvittie, Ken Miyasaki, Mark Patters, Narrayan Ramasubbu, Michael Reed, Molakala Reddy, Frank Scannapieco, Harvey Schenkein, Robert Schifferle, Lawrence Tabak, Martin Taubman, Thomas Van Dyke, and Joseph Zambon.

The MacDonald Line
Jack MacDonald, after his work with Rosebury, returned to the University of Toronto and shortly thereafter was asked to become the Director of the Forsyth Dental Infirmary, where he recruited Ron Gibbons and Sig Socransky. Those trained under the direction of The Forsyth include: Drs. Doug Bratthall, Page Caufield, Bill Clark, Floyd Dewhirst, Richard Ellen, Anne Haffajee, Jeffrey Hillman, Jens Kelstrup, William Liljemark, Max Listgarten, Walter Loesche, Stephen Offenbacher, Bruce Paster, Ilka Paunio, Norton Taichman, Anne Tanner, Phil Stashenko, Jorgen Slots, Clay Walker, and Ray Williams.

The Fusospirochetal Infection Model
The work by Rosebury and Foley suggested that a group of Fusiforms and Spirochetes was responsible for Vincent’s Infection, or ANUG. The organisms responsible were called the Pathogenic Quartet and consisted of a spirochete, a fusiform bacillus, a vibrio, and an anaerobic streptococcus (Foley and Rosebury, 1942). Rosebury’s argument was that these organisms, members of the indigenous flora, were interdependent and together formulated an unmanageable pathogenic dose when they overgrew. Drs. Ellison and MacDonald helped to refine the model and better define the microbial factors that were essential for the infection.

MacDonald’s Departure: Indigenous or Exogenous Infections?
When MacDonald left the lab, Rosebury was of the opinion that the members of the Pathogenic Quartet were the essential organisms of infection. He speculated that these organisms required nutritional input from 20 to 30 other organisms to support their anaerobic and nutritional requirements (Rosebury et al., 1950). He further claimed that these organisms were part of the indigenous flora, and that they derived their growth stimulus from turmoil produced by nutritional or immunological imbalance in the host that allowed these organisms to overgrow (Rosebury et al., 1950). Further, he and his colleagues tested plaque samples from normal non-diseased subjects, subjects with gingivitis, periodontal disease, and ANUG and demonstrated that the fusospirochetal flora derived from each of these conditions could produce virulent infections in animals (Rosebury, 1947). He concluded that disease was provoked by an overgrowth of members of the indigenous flora, because these same organisms were found in plaque from normal and diseased subjects. MacDonald, in contrast, believed that the "terrible four" might not be essential, and that there could be others that were equally or more virulent. MacDonald’s thesis was that other combinations of organisms—perhaps even one or two organisms, as opposed to four—could be responsible for the infection. In a series of elegant experiments, he attempted to manipulate the Pathogenic Quartet and to compare the infectious level of the "terrible four" with that of other plaque organisms, including the Black-pigmented Bacteriodes (BPBs). Ultimately, Macdonald’s work led to examination of the Bacteroides species (one of which is now named Porphyromonas gingivalis) as potential agents of oral and dental infection (Macdonald et al., 1956).

The debate about whether disease is caused by an overgrowth of members of the indigenous flora (Rosebury, 1949) or by specific organisms such as Bacteroides (MacDonald et al., 1960) is complex and is best summarized by a review of Walter Loesche’s Nonspecific Plaque Hypothesis (NSPH) and the alternative Specific Plaque Hypothesis (SPH). The NSPH states that disease is due to a substantial increase in the numbers of plaque organisms, resulting in an overwhelming microbial load that causes the body to succumb to disease. In contrast, the SPH states that it is possible that a specific plaque organism or groups of organisms are responsible for specific forms of periodontal disease (Loesche, 1976). It is not far-fetched to suggest that Rosebury, his students, or his students’ students provided the genesis of these ideas. Current research continues to address these issues (Socransky and Haffajee, 2005).

ACADEMICS AND POLITICS: THE ROSEBURY DILEMMA

The Rosebury story cannot be told without including the role that politics played in the unfolding of his academic career. Evidently, Rosebury was quite outspoken. Both his political and scientific beliefs were well-known. His political beliefs were an integral part of his being, and reaction to those beliefs had a major impact on his academic career and are therefore included in his story.

Elvin Kabat’s Story (Political Crisis, 1940s: Poisoned Ivies)
Elvin Kabat was a distinguished member of the faculty at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in the Departments of Biochemistry and Bacteriology. He was a member of the National Academy of Sciences and received a National Medal of Sciences in 1991. He and his mentor, Dr. Michael Heidelberger, are considered to be the founding fathers of modern quantitative immunochemistry. He trained many immunologists, including Nobel Laureate Baruj Benarcerraf. In the mid- to late 1940s, Rosebury and Kabat were commissioned to write a report for the National Research Council (NRC) on Biological Warfare. The work, entitled "Bacterial Warfare: A critical analysis of the available agents, their possible military applications, and the means for protections against them", was co-authored by Dr. Elvin Kabat in association with Martin H. Moldt, a medical student (Rosebury, 1949). This commissioned work resulted in Rosebury’s appointment as the Director of the Air-Borne Infection Unit of the Biological Warfare Program at Camp Detrick, Maryland, during World War II. The original NRC report, after it was declassified, resulted in a publication, in 1947, entitled "Biological Warfare", co-authored by Kabat and Moldt (Rosebury et al., 1947). The publication of this work created a worldwide sensation, because it was feared that the information revealed might compromise USA safety during the Cold War years. Unbeknownst to critics, the US Army and Government had approved of the publication, just as it had approved publication of the Smythe Report about the atomic bomb. Several influential professors at Harvard Medical School pressured the Dean of Columbia to fire Rosebury and Kabat. Quoting Kabat, "Rosebury and I were called to the Dean’s office and were told that the report might offend religious groups and that if we insisted on publishing it we should write our resignations on the spot...About six months later, Dean Rappleye came to Ted Rosebury’s office and said that he had made a mistake, that the University did not intend to limit our freedom to publish,..." (Kabat, 1983). Kabat remained at Columbia until his death in 2000. Rosebury left Columbia shortly after that incident.

Barnet Levy’s Story (Politics 1950s: It’s not who you know but who doesn’t know you!)
Dr. Barnet Levy was a member of the Columbia faculty in the ‘40s and was a leading figure in dental research who had written many scientific articles and co-authored a leading oral pathology textbook, A Textbook of Oral Pathology (Shafer et al., 1963). He was the Editor of the Journal of Dental Research from 1977 to 1982 (Robertson and O’Neil, 1997), knew Rosebury well, and had great respect for his scientific accomplishments. Dr. Levy recounts an incident where Dean Leroy Boling of Washington University Dental School was looking for a chair of the Microbiology Department and was not happy with the applicant pool. He mentioned this to Dr. Levy over dinner and asked if he knew anyone whom he could recommend. With that, Dr. Levy, a former member of the Washington University dental school faculty, asked tentatively if Dr. Boling had ever heard of Theodor Rosebury. When the Dean said that he had never heard of him, Dr. Levy knew at that moment that Rosebury had the job. Dr. Levy knew that as long as Dean Boling was unaware of Rosebury’s political history, he would hire him based on the merit of his science. Shortly thereafter, Rosebury was appointed as chair of the Department of Microbiology at Washington University Dental School, where he stayed until his retirement in 1967 as Professor Emeritus.

Walter Loesche’s Story: The Anaerobic Chamber (Political Crisis, the late 1960s: Another Viet Nam Casualty)
In the late 1960s, Walter Loesche had obtained his PhD in the Harvard/MIT program and was studying nutritional effects on micro-organisms, particularly anaerobic micro-organisms such as spirochetes. Rosebury had been interested in growing oral spirochetes, because of their obvious overgrowth in acute necrotizing gingivitis and their prominence in the mixed-infection model. But, most likely, his real intention was that any secrets learned from their cultivation might unlock the possibility of growing Treponema pallidum, the causative agent of syphilis, which, even to this day, has not been grown in vitro. In the early 1960s, the rumen microbiologists had demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of the flora living in the rumen were cultivable only if oxygen was eliminated from the in vitro environment (Hungate, 1950). Rosebury considered that oxygen toxicity was the reason why spirochetes, such as T. pallidum, could not be cultured, and designed what was to be the first anaerobic chamber, to grow spirochetes.

He modeled the chamber on the concept of the existing anaerobic jar (Brewer Jar), in which a series of vacuums, followed by successive introduction of oxygen-free gases (OFG) (N₂ and, finally, 80% N₂, 10% CO₂, 10% H₂), created an anaerobic environment. The resulting chamber was a stainless steel enclosure, about 6 feet by 2 feet by 2.5 feet, in which the technician could manipulate agar plates in the usual fashion through two rubber-glove ports. Entry of objects into the chamber was by a separate lock at one end of the chamber that could be evacuated and replenished with the OFG. Any residual oxygen was removed by the heating of palladium pellets within the chamber, which catalyzed its reaction with H₂ to form water, which in turn had to be removed by desiccants.

Rosebury was able to get support from the Center for Communicable Diseases to build the chamber for the express purpose of growing T. pallidum. But Rosebury’s political interests thwarted this goal. It was 1966, and the Viet Nam protests were heating up. An anti-war group invited Herbert Aptheker, a well-known Marxist scholar, and a recent visitor to Viet Nam, to speak at an anti-war rally in St. Louis. Rosebury invited Aptheker to be his house guest, and this caused a local conservative newspaper to focus on Rosebury and especially his membership in the Pugwash Society. The Pugwash Society was an international anti-war group that included Albert Einstein and Bertram Russell among its founding members. Rosebury was in this elite group because of his monograph against biological warfare, entitled "Peace or Pestilence, Biological Warfare and How to Avoid it". In the media blitz surrounding the Aptheker visit, an editorial called for Rosebury’s resignation. In combating these charges, Rosebury suffered greatly, and the publicity resulted in his being offered an early retirement package from Washington University.

This left the fate of the anaerobic chamber unsettled, and along with it the plausibility of growing T. pallidum on artificial media. Walter had recently obtained his PhD from MIT and was studying, along with Sigmund Socransky, nutritional effects on anaerobic micro-organisms, such as spirochetes. Sig and Walter were invited by Rosebury and the CDC to St. Louis to discuss the future of the chamber. When they met with Rosebury, he was depressed and prepared to move to Chicago. Recognizing that his work with the chamber was over, he assigned its use to Sig and Walter. Loesche took the Rosebury chamber to Forsyth and then to Michigan, but quickly replaced it with the modified germ-free plastic chamber that Rolf Freter had developed (Arank et al., 1969). Freter had visited Rosebury in St. Louis and incorporated many ideas, such as the palladium catalysts and desiccants, into his chamber design. The Freter chamber has become the standard in anaerobic microbiology, but the Rosebury chamber was influential in its plan, and was the first anaerobic chamber used in microbiology.

ROSEBURY AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC

In early 1972, less than a year after I met Rosebury at his home in Chicago, I remember seeing him on the "Tonight" show, hosted by Johnny Carson. Carson interviewed him about his newly published book, Microbes and Morals: The strange story of venereal disease (Rosebury, 1971). It was his second appearance on the popular nightly television show. I remember telling my colleagues at Columbia that Rosebury was so important that he was interviewed by Johnny Carson, not once but twice! Little did I know at that time that the real contribution Rosebury made to modern science was much more far-reaching.

ROSEBURY AND GENERAL MICROBIOLOGY

It is more than likely that Ted Rosebury is better known outside of the dental research community. His national prominence initially resulted from his work at Camp Detrick, and this experience led to a book detailing his life during those trying times. This book, mentioned previously and entitled Peace or Pestilence, Biological Warfare and How to Avoid It, is a personal and down-to-earth description of microbiology turned upside down. The book, published in 1949, is particularly relevant today (Rosebury, 1949). In a recent book by Judith Miller, entitled Germs, Miller, a reporter for The New York Times, reviews the history of germ warfare in this country and reveals the following information: "In a secret report of July 1949, a panel of more than a dozen senior federal and private experts told the secretary of defense that germ weapons deserved more attention...and foreseeable advances would raise [such] weapons, silent but deadly...ideal for covert attacks." She further states that "some veterans of the secretive work disagreed with the government’s reasoning. Theodor Rosebury, a microbiologist at Detrick during the war, assailed germ weapons in his 1949 book Peace or Pestilence. He warned that the field’s promises were illusory and that its munitions had no real military value, since the outcome of germ attacks would always be impossible to predict or control. The expertise should instead be turned to attacking infectious diseases." Unfortunately, his plea had no immediate impact (Miller et al., 2001).

In another recent revelation concerning the impact of this "little" book, an article in the Atlantic Monthly entitled "Inside the Al-Qaeda’s Hard Drive" indicated that Ayman al Zawahiri in Kandahar, in an e-mail to Atef, an associate of Osama Bin Laden, states that "Peace or Pestilence was one of the books he had read" (Cullison, 2004). While this book clearly outlines the perils of germ warfare, Rosebury also provides some insight into what he learned from the time he spent at Fort Detrick. He states that, in his scientific work, he had never experienced the success that could be derived from the team approach he experienced during his tenure in the Air Borne division. The devotion, cooperation, and success that came out of the collaboration of this group of scientists, drawn from diverse backgrounds, made a lasting impression. It was his feeling that this experience could provide an example of how science could solve important problems related to health and disease (Rosebury, 1949).

Rosebury wrote several other books. One of note was Life on Man, a book that received a special commendation in the 1971 National Book Award science category. In a conference given at the California Institute of Technology on October 11, 2000, entitled "Differential Gene Expression in Development and Aging", welcoming remarks were made by Nobel Laureate Joshua Lederberg (http://www.grg.org/EllisonCalTech.htm). In those remarks, he suggested that, in addition to the genome and the proteome, the metabiome (the DNA descriptions of all species of natural flora and parasites, both beneficial and pathological) should be included in genetic studies. In that address, Lederberg strongly recommended that the "best source to learn more about this obscure category...can be found in a now out-of-print book by Theodor Rosebury (which he called a ‘cult-favorite’)", Life on Man (Rosebury, 1969). In February, 2006, in the journal Cell, Stanley Falkow, referred to by some as one of the founders of the field of Molecular Pathogenesis, wrote an article entitled "Is persistent bacterial infection good for your health?" (Falkow, 2006). He started the article by stating that, in Life on Man, "Theodor Rosebury reminded us 35 years ago that all life, including microbes, is a single community and that it would be a good idea to stop thinking indiscriminately of our unicellular companions as repulsive, contemptible, or even ferocious" (Falkow, 2006).

In addition, Rosebury wrote a textbook mentioned previously, Microorganisms Indigenous to Man. This is the textbook that caught my attention as a fledgling academic and provided my first knowledge of Dr. Rosebury. To this day, I consider this book to be a classic microbiology text, because of its thoroughness and its careful portrayal of the bacteria that share our lives and that live with us on a daily basis. In my effort to gain an understanding of how the rest of the world perceives this book, I did an ISI Web of Knowledge search of the number of scientists who have referred to this book, which was published in 1962. The search compared Rosebury’s text with what I considered another classic text, written in the same era, Bacterial and Mycotic Infections in Man, by Renée Dubos (Dubos and Hirsch, 1965). It was of interest to find that, since the 1990s, Rosebury’s book was referenced at a rate of ten to one, compared with the Dubos classic. I would suggest reading both.

CONCLUSIONS

The Rosebury story reinforces my belief that we can always count on the fact that the "head is connected to the rest of the body", and therefore that research related to the oral cavity has to be of equal or greater significance than research related to many other parts of the body. Thus, the research we do, if done in a thorough and comprehensive manner, should be of value to science that extends far beyond the oral cavity. Rosebury was a firm believer in that principle. He also believed in learning as you go, or, put differently, that a person should never stop learning and should continue to push him or herself beyond the boundaries of his/her current ‘comfort zone’. In addition, his experience at Fort Detrick taught him the value of multidisciplinary research, a lesson we still need to put into practice. At the heart of Rosebury’s experiments were the constant interchanges between animal models and clinical observations, always balancing the two to come to the most erudite conclusion. The lessons learned from a man of his stature, dedicated to the pursuit of science and knowledge, provide us with an example of a skilled individual who never lost sight of his goal. His scientific pursuits have made contributions that are still useful to a new generation of scientists, who, although they may never have heard his name, nevertheless benefit from his work and the work of the people he trained. I consider it to have been a privilege to have met him and to have been asked to write this article in his memory.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I especially thank Celia Rosebury Lighthill for providing the photographs from her personal collection, and for her helpful suggestions and input, without which the article could not have been written. I also thank Dr. Walter Loesche and Dr. Barnet Levy, for permitting me to use their stories as part of the text of this article. Thanks also to Dr. Solon A. Ellison for his contributions, and to Dr. Irwin Mandel and Dr. Martin Taubman for their encouragement. I also extend my appreciation to the librarians at the UMDNJ library services, for their help in uncovering documents that are cited in the text.

Received for publication June 20, 2006. Revision received September 11, 2006. Accepted for publication September 14, 2006.

REFERENCES

• Arank A, Syed SA, Kenney EB, Freter R (1969). Isolation of anaerobic bacteria from human gingiva and mouse cecum by means of a simplified glove box procedure. Appl Microbiol 17:568–576.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Baum BJ, Fox PC, Tabak LA (1997). Columbia, salivary research, plus Irwin Mandel equal a special combination for dentistry. J Dent Res 76:631–633.
• Cullison A (2004). Inside Al-Qaeda’s hard drive. Atlantic Monthly 294:55–70.
• Debus AG (1968). World who’s who in science: a biographical dictionary of notable scientists from antiquity to the present. Calinger RS, Collins EJ, associate editors. Chicago, IL: Marquis-Who’s Who Inc., p. 1443.
• Dubos RJ, Hirsch JG (1965). Bacterial and mycotic infections of man. Dubos RG, Hirsch JG, editors. 4th ed. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott.
• Emmings FG (1999). Oral biology, a dialogue: Solon Arthur Ellison at the State University of New York at Buffalo. J Dent Res 78:725–729.
• Falkow S (2006). Is persistent bacterial infection good for your health? Cell 124:699–702.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Foley G, Rosebury T (1942). Comparative infectivity for guinea pigs of fusospirochetal exudates from different diseases. J Dent Res 21:375–378.
• Hungate RE (1950). The anaerobic mesophilic cellulolytic bacteria. Bacteriol Rev 14:1–49.[Free Full Text]
• Kabat EA (1983). Getting started 50 years ago—experiences, perspectives, and problems of the first 21 years. Annu Rev Immunol 1:1–32.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Kaye G, Fine DH, Grey RM, Fenoglio CM (1975). A commensal infestation of the colon of Macaca mulatta by a treponema. Proc 10th Int Congress of Anat 421:1075.
• Kurtz MD (1978). Columbia University and those who made it the Mecca of dental education. Bull Hist Dent 26:86–103.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Loesche WJ (1976). Chemotherapy of dental plaque infections. Oral Sci Rev 9:65–107.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Macdonald JB, Sutton RM, Knoll ML, Madlener EM, Grainger RM (1956). The pathogenic components of an experimental fusospirochetal infection. J Infect Dis 98:15–20.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Macdonald JB, Gibbons RJ, Socransky SS (1960). Bacterial mechanisms in periodontal disease. Ann NY Acad Sci 85:467–478.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Miller J, Engelberg S, Broad W (2001). Germs: the ultimate weapon. London: Simon and Schuster Ltd.
• Robertson PB, O’Neil PA (1997). Mentoring: the gift of Barnet Levy. J Dent Res 76:1527–1528.
• Rosebury T (1946). Recent developments in fusospirochetal and related infections. J Periodontol 17:121–125.
• Rosebury T (1947). The nature and significance of infections in periodontal disease. Am J Orth and Oral Surg 33:1–8.
• Rosebury T (1949). Peace or pestilence: biological warfare and how to avoid it. New York: Whittlesey House, McGraw-Hill Co.
• Rosebury T (1957). The challenge to dentistry: a tribute to William J. Gies. Science 126:1056–1058.[Free Full Text]
• Rosebury T (1962). Microorganisms indigenous to man. New York: McGraw-Hill Co.
• Rosebury T (1969). Life on man. New York: Viking Press.
• Rosebury T (1971). Microbes and morals: the strange story of venereal disease. New York: Viking Press.
• Rosebury T, Foley G (1939). Experimental: Vincent’s infecton. J Am Dent Assoc 26:1797–1811.
• Rosebury T, Foley G, Greenberg S (1934). Studies of Lactobacilli in relation to caries in rats. II. Attempt to immunize rats, on caries-producing diets, against Lactobacilli. J Dent Res 14:231–232.
• Rosebury T, Karshan M (1939). Dental caries among Eskimos of the Kuskokwim area of Alaska. III. A dietary study of three Eskimo settlements. Am J Dis Child 57:1343.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Rosebury T, Waugh LM (1939). Caries among Eskimos of the Kuskokwim area of Alaska. I. Clinical and bacteriological findings. Am J Dis Child 57:871.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Rosebury T, Kabat EA, Boldt MH (1947). Bacterial warfare. A critical analysis of the available agents, their possible military applications, and the means for protection against them. J Immunol 56:7–96.
• Rosebury T, Clark AR, Macdonald JB, O’Connell DC (1950). Studies of fusospirochetal infection. III. Further studies of a guinea pig passage strain of fusospirochetal infection, including the infectivity of sterile exudate filtrates, of mixed cultures through ten transfers, and of recombined pure cultures. J Infect Dis 87:234–248.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Rosebury T, Macdonald JB, Ellison SA, Engel SG (1951). Media and methods for separation and cultivation of oral spirochetes. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 4:68–85.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Shafer WG, Hine MK, Levy BM (1963). A textbook of oral pathology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co.
• Socransky SS, Haffajee AD (2005). Periodontal microbial ecology. Periodontol 2000 38:135–187.[CrossRef]
• Waugh LM (1932). A study of the influences of diet and of racial admixture on the development of the jaws and face of the American Eskimo. J Dent Res 12:426–429.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 85, No. 11, 990-995 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910608501103


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. C. Armitage and P. B. Robertson The Biology, Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of Periodontal Diseases: Scientific Advances in the United States J Am Dent Assoc, September 1, 2009; 140(suppl_1): 36S - 43S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Fine, D. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Fine, D. H. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?