352 LOCAL TLSSLK REACTIVITY 



l)c seen to Muli ;i ( lassilu ation provided the icnii allcrt^y is ac- 

 cepted ill its broadest sense, simply indicating an altered behavior 

 of a cell or tissue. It is deemed advisable, however, in fnrther 

 investigations to (ontinue to define the phenomenon merely by 

 its chaiac (eristics. 



RECAPITULATION 



All the evidence considered together sharply differentiates the 

 phenomenon of local tissue reactivity descril)ed in this mono- 

 graph from true general anaphylaxis and the Arthus phenome- 

 non, namely: Absence of specific relationships between prepara- 

 tory and provocative factors; lack of passive transfer and specihc 

 desensiti/ation; shortness of incubation period; elicitation of the 

 state of reactivity by a single injection; inability to induce the 

 state of reactivity ^vith animal proteins; neutralization of pre- 

 paratory and provocative factors by immune sera; active and 

 passive acquired specific immunity. Furthermore, certain blood 

 changes {i.e.^ variation in number of blood cells and influence 

 upon coagulation) -which may be observed in the phenomenon 

 and therefore suggest a superficial similarity, bear no relationship 

 to the phenomenon itself but are merely due to the injection of 

 the bacterial filtrates into the oeneral circulation of the rabbit. 



The absence of any relationship l)etween the state of protein 

 hypersensiti\eness and the state of reactivity elicited by the active 

 principles of the phenomenon is supported by failure of cross 

 desensitization and also by the fact that repeated anaphylactic 

 desensitization does not produce any effect upon the susceptibility 

 to the phenomenon of local tissue reactivity. 



In the gross, and histologically, there is observed a clear dif- 

 ferentiation between the Arthus phenomenon and the phenome- 

 non of local tissue reactivity. There also does not seem to exist 

 any relationship between toxin hypersensitiveness described by 

 \'on Behring and the phenomenon of local tissue reactivity. 



The state of reactivity of this phenomenon is entirely unrelated 

 to possible spontaneous sensitization with gram-negative bacilli 

 normally found in the upper respiratory tract of rabbits. 



The inflammation which may or may not be associated with 

 the state of reactivity is not responsible for it. 



From the above it may be concluded that the state of reactivity 

 described deals with a hitherto unrecognized functional disturb- 

 ance in the susceptibility of the animal tissue elicited by means 



