IMMUNOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS 333 



tion of sensitized uterine muscle by means of the al)o\e haptenes. 

 The skin reactions to haptenes in passively sensitized guinea pigs 

 ^vere neither an immediate evanescent urticarial reaction char- 

 acteristic of protein anaphylaxis nor a late allergic reaction since 

 they disappeared within t^venty-foiu' horns. 



Avery and Tillett (1929) foimd that the soluble specific sub- 

 stance (Avery and Heidelberger's haptenes) of pneumococcus 

 Types I, II, and III produced fatal anaphylactic shock in guinea 

 pigs passively sensitized \vith anti-pneumococcus rabbit serum. 



Lancefield succeeded in eliciting anaphylactic shock in guinea 

 pigs with streptococcus carbohydrates isolated by her, in guinea 

 pigs passively sensitized with anti-streptococcus serum. 



According to Francis and Tillett (1931) the injection of the 

 type specific capsular polysaccharides of pneumococcus Types I, 

 II, and III into the skin of rabbits actively or passively im- 

 munized to one of these types of pneumococcus elicits type specific 

 cutaneous reaction. The reaction resembling the Arthus phe- 

 nomenon is produced only Avhen type specific precipitins for the 

 homologous polysaccharide are demonstrable in the blood of the 

 rabbit. 



Successfid experiments on passi\e transfer ^vere also reported 

 by Mehlman and Seegal (1934) and Enders (1929). The latter 

 author conferred passi\e sensitization to B. tuberculosis by means 

 of anti-tubercle bacillus rabbit serum. 



To Sinn up: true anaphylaxis and Arthus phenomenon can be 

 defined as a state of hypersensitiveness to animal proteins and 

 certain bacterial antigens appearing after a dehnite incubation 

 period, specific in nature and closely depending on the presence 

 of the specific antibody against the sensitizing antigen. Passive 

 transfer and desensitization are clear-cut and represent essential 

 criteria for identification of anaphylaxis. 



If all these featines of true anaphylaxis are considered together 

 it is obvious that a clear differentiation may be obtained be- 

 t^veen true anaphylaxis and the phenomenon of local tissue re- 

 activity, although a superficial examination may suggest a 

 similarity. 



As a matter of fact, if an attempt is made to explain the phe- 

 nomenon of local tissue reactivity on the basis of anaphylaxis, it 

 becomes necessary to assimie that the skin preparation Avith the 

 bacterial filtrate represents the sensitizing injection. Following 

 this sensitization, antibodies may, then, develop locallv ^vhich 



