ANTI-ENZYME IMMUNITY 249 



hibited a limited number of minimal diffusing doses of diffusing factor 

 in the skin and this probably explains the failure of Meyer, et al. 

 (1940) to demonstrate inhibition of diffusion with pneumococcal 

 antiserum. 



Duran-Reynals (1939) as well as Favilli (1940) reported that anti- 

 venomous serum inhibited or inactivated both the toxic and the spread- 

 ing factors of venom. Favilli found that the mucolytic activity of the 

 venom enzyme is also completely suppressed when specific antiserum 

 in an appropriate amount is added to the solution of venom; the addi- 

 tion of normal horse serum, on the contrary, had no inhibitory action. 

 McClean (1943) found that sera which inhibit the diffusing and 

 viscosity reducing activity of these enzymes also inhibit mucin clot 

 prevention. Sera prepared against enzymes obtained from CI. welchii 

 and Vihrion seftiqiie are species- but not type-specific. Those obtained 

 against streptococcal enzymes are group- but not type-specific. A serum 

 prepared against diffusing factor from bull's testis inhibited this 

 enzyme, but did not inhibit testicular enzyme from the mouse, or any 

 of the bacterial enzymes. 



Leanard and Kurzrok (1945) reported the results of a study on the 

 effect of normal and antihyaluronidase immune serum on the disper- 

 sion of follicle cells by hyaluronidase. Normal rat serum from either 

 sex prevented this effect by the enzyme. One to 10 dilution of normal 

 serum inhibited the reaction only slightly. The antisera prepared 

 against bull testes extracts containing hyaluronidase inhibited in much 

 higher dilution the dispersion of the follicle cells of the rat in vitro 

 by hyaluronidase. On the other hand, ova from these immunized rats 

 were affected by hyaluronidase at the same rate as ova from normal 

 rats. 



E. ANTIBODY AGAINST PROTEOLYTIC ENZYMES 



1. Antibody Against a "Trypsin" Preparation^ 



Achalme (1901) reported that a trypsin preparation produced patho- 

 logical effects in guinea pigs. He believed that these effects were as- 

 sociated with the proteolytic property of the enzyme preparations. Im- 



*There is a long list of controversial studies on this subject. In this respect the fol- 

 lowing recent study is of interest. Our comment on this study applies to previous 

 studies as well. 



In a series of three articles on the "Antiproteolytic Activity of Serum," Grob (1943) 



