34^ LOCAL TLSSLE REACTIVITY 



lahhils, as well as new rabbits, received intradermal injections, 

 rej^eated every eight days, of the homologous serum on one side 

 and heterologous serum on the other. In this manner, they ob- 

 tained severe reactions \vith the second or third injection of the 

 heterologous serum. From this they concluded that the rabbits 

 sensitized to horse serinii may be rendered sensitive more easily 

 to the sheep serinn than new rabbits. The conclusions of these 

 authors, concerning the non-specificity of the Arthus phenomenon 

 and of anaphylaxis, are obviously contradictory to well founded 

 and generally accepted kno\vledge. The crude sera employed by 

 these authors consist of a number cjf various proteins. Some of 

 the proteins may be immunologically identical when coming from 

 totally unrelated sources (Wells) . It is indeed not surprising that 

 group antigenicity could be disclosed after prolonged sensitiza- 

 tion "with sera of such closely allied zoologically species as horse 

 and sheep. 



5. The last argtnnent of Gratia and Linz, brought in favor of 

 the connection of the Arthus phenc^menon and the phenomenon 

 of local tissue reactivity, is based on the appearance of the reac- 

 tion. It has already been indicated in Chapter vi that in the gross 

 and microscopically, distinct differences may be c:)bserved. It is 

 suflicient to mention here that the reaction of the j)henomenon of 

 local skin reactivity is first and predominantly hemorrhagic Avith 

 secondary inflannnatc:)ry reaction, while in the Arthus phenomenon 

 the hemorrhage and necrosis appear in the central zones of pri- 

 marily intensely inflamed tissues, and only after repeated sensitiza- 

 tion, for a period oi many weeks. 



The above discussed contention of Ciratia and Linz concern- 

 ing the relation of the phencjmenon of local tissue reactivity to 

 anaphylaxis is not sujjported by a number of investigators in this 

 lield (Burnet, Apitz, Plant, P. Bordet, Kielanowski and Selzer, 

 Stolyhwo, Michelazzi, Witebsky and Neter and others) . 



Michelazzi (19^3^(7) studied the effect of intraxenous in)ectic:)n 

 of bacterial filtrates upon smooth muscles of the intestines and 

 found that no hypersensitivity follows such treatment. The 

 j^arenchymal injection of an active bacterial fUtrate causes hy- 

 persensitivity of the organ shown by diminution of circulation, 

 i.e., diminution of venous flow. An intravenous injection twenty- 

 four hours later causes vascular sensitivity. The intravenous or 

 subcutaneous injection of normal immune hemolytic serum does 

 not produce any necrotic lesions. The author claims that the 



