Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:41:04.880Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Passive Anaphylaxis following the immediate injection of Antigen after Antiserum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

H. R. Dean ,
R. Williamson  and
G. L. Taylor
H. R. Dean
Affiliation:
From the Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge
R. Williamson
Affiliation:
From the Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge
G. L. Taylor
Affiliation:
From the Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Our experiments show that an intravenous injection of antigen immediately after an intravenous injection of antiserum in the guinea-pig were followed by:

(a) Acute shock and death within 5 min. The signs and post-mortem appearances were indistinguishable from acute anaphylactic shock as typically seen in the guinea-pig. Some control animals injected with antiserum only died in a way similar to those which received both antiserum and antigen. These are discussed in detail in the body of the paper.

(b) Delayed shock and death some hours later. The post-mortem appearances were those of gastro-intestinal congestion and haemorrhage resembling the changes seen in dogs dying of anaphylactic shock. Such changes were never seen in the control animals.

(c) Recovery. Practically all the animals which recovered had symptoms of respiratory embarrassment immediately following the injections of anti-serum and antigen and many had later symptoms of abdominal shock. The animals which were given an injection of antiserum only rarely had any symptoms and never abdominal symptoms.

2. It is necessary to test the antisera used by control inoculation since some antisera are toxic.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , October 1936 , pp. 570 - 587
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1936

References

Biedl, A. & Kraus, R. (1910). Z. Immunol. 4, 115.Google Scholar
Dean, H. R. (1922). J. Path. Bact. 25, 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, H. R. & Webb, R. A. (1924). J. Path. Bact. 27, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, H. R. & Webb, R. A. (1926). Ibid. 29, 473.Google Scholar
Dean, H. R. & Webb, R. A. (1928). Ibid. 31, 89.Google Scholar
Doerr, R. (1913). In Kolle und Wassermann Handbuch der pathogenen Mikroorganismen. 2, 1035.Google Scholar
Doerr, R. & Russ, V. K. (1909). Z. Immunol. 3, 181.Google Scholar
Fawcett, J. & Ryle, J. A. (1923). Lancet, i, 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, M. E. (1931). J. Immunol. 20, 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forssman, J. (1911). Biochem. Z. 37, 78.Google Scholar
Friedemann, U. (1909). Z. Immunol. 2, 391.Google Scholar
Gurd, F. B. (1914). J. Med. Res. 31, 205.Google Scholar
Gurd, F. B., Fraser, B. & Emrys-Roberts, E. (1920). Lancet, i, 763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otto, R. (1907). München. med. Wch. 55, 1665.Google Scholar
Parker, J. T. & Parker, F. (1923–4). J. Med. Res. 44, 263.Google Scholar
Richet, C. (1913). Anaphylaxis. (English edition.)Google Scholar
Redfern, W. M. (1926). Amer. J. Hyg. 6, 276.Google Scholar
Ryle, J. A. (1935). Lancet, i, 1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taniguchi, T. (1922). J. Path. Bact. 25, 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weil, R. (1912–13). J. Med. Res. 27, 497.Google Scholar
Weil, R. (1917). J. Immunol. 2, 95, 525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zinsser, H. (1914). Proc. New York Path. Soc. 14, 247.Google Scholar