Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 23, Number 10—October 2017
Letter

Etymologia: Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease

On This Page
Article Metrics
2
citations of this article
EID Journal Metrics on Scopus

Cite This Article

To the Editor: The recent etymologia article on Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease by Henry and Murphy (1) does not accurately reflect current understanding of the contributions of Creutzfeldt and Jakob. Although Jakob had reported that Creutzfeldt’s earlier case was a “nosologically very closely connected if not identical affection” (2), Creutzfeldt himself later reported that “his case did not bear any resemblance to the cases described by Jakob” (3). As discussed by neuropathologist Edgar Peirson Richardson, Jr., in 1977, “Did Creutzfeldt and Jakob describe CJD? … Creutzfeldt probably did not—Jakob to the contrary notwithstanding—and Creutzfeldt is said to have disagreed with the identification of his case with Jakob’s cases. Jakob’s cases, on the other hand, can more readily be fitted into current concepts of the disease without undue strain” (4). In 1982, neuropathologist Colin L. Masters and pediatrician D. Carleton Gajdusek concurred with Richardson: “We agree with Richardson (1977) that Creutzfeldt's case probably can be excluded from classification as a spongiform encephalopathy on the basis of his own clinical and pathological descriptions, although a specific alternative diagnosis cannot be made” (5). In a later article, Richardson and Masters further noted that Creutzfeldt’s case showed no indication of spongiform change, and the character of the lesions was not characteristic of “CJD” (6). In contrast, Jakob clearly described cases of “CJD”: based on reexamination of the original pathologic slides preserved at the University of Hamburg, several of Jakob’s cases were consistent with the clinical picture of “CJD” and showed characteristic pathologic findings of spongiform encephalopathy (5). Finally, although Walther Spielmeyer first used the term “Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease” in 1922, his decision to emphasize Creutzfeldt was likely because Creutzfeldt was then working in Spielmeyer’s laboratory; other early terms for the disease gave credit preferentially or solely to Jakob.

Top

Douglas John LanskaComments to Author 

Author affiliation: VA Medical Center, Tomah, Wisconsin, USA; University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA

Top

References

  1. Henry  R, Murphy  FA. Etymologia: Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Emerg Infect Dis. 2017;23:956. DOI
  2. Jakob  A. Über eigenartige erkrankungen des zentralnervensystems mit bemerkenswertem anatomischen befunde (spastische pseudosklerose-encephalomyelopathie mit disseminierten degenerationsherden). Z Gesamte Neurol Psychiatr. 1921;64:147228. DOI
  3. Manuelidis  EE. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 1985;44:117. DOIPubMed
  4. Richardson  EP Jr. Introduction [myoclonic dementia]. In: Rottenberg DA, Hochberg FH editors. Neurological classics in modern translation. New York: Hafner Press; 1977. p. 95–6.
  5. Masters  CL, Gajdusek  DC. The spectrum of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and the virus-induced subacute spongiform encephalopathies. In: Smith WT, Cavanagh JB, editors. Recent advances in neuropathology. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1982. p. 139–63.
  6. Richardson  EP Jr, Masters  CL. The nosology of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and conditions related to the accumulation of PrPCJD in the nervous system. Brain Pathol. 1995;5:3341. DOIPubMed

Top

Cite This Article

DOI: 10.3201/eid2310.171142

Related Links

Top

Table of Contents – Volume 23, Number 10—October 2017

Comments

Please use the form below to submit correspondence to the authors or contact them at the following address:

Douglas J. Lanska, VA Medical Center, 500 E Veterans St, Tomah, WI 54660, USA

Send To

character(s) remaining.

Comment submitted successfully, thank you for your feedback.

Top

Page created: September 19, 2017
Page updated: September 19, 2017
Page reviewed: September 19, 2017
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external