HOWARD T. KARSNER 979 



of the pigeon's crop to anaphylactic stimulation. Williams and Van de Carr' found 

 less clear cut inhibition in the guinea pig, and both Hyde^ and Reed^ found none at all. 

 Various agents have been employed to alter the physical state of the body. 

 Kopaczewski and Vahram'' believe that the inhibitory effect of sodium oleate is due 

 to the lowering of surface tension of the blood. Karsner and Ecker^ employed various 

 colloids with only slight effect. The inhibitory effect of sodium chloride has been 

 thought by some to be due to alteration of the colloidal state of fluids and tissues, but 

 Richet^ believes it to be due to influence on the nerve cells. Hussey^ found inhibition 

 to result from X-ray exposures, but this did not apply to the uterus when tested by 

 the Dale method. Further discussion is to be found in the review by Longcope.^ 



REVERSE ANAPHYLAXIS 



Forssmann' found that the intravenous injection into guinea pigs of sheep hemo- 

 lytic immune serum produces anaphylaxis-like symptoms. He interprets this as a 

 union of pre-existing antigen in the guinea pig cells and injected antibody, and gave 

 the phenomenon the name "reverse anaphylaxis." It is more probably an anaphylac- 

 toid reaction. More satisfactory are the results of Opie'" who injected horse serum 

 into rabbits and several hours subsequently a specific precipitating immune serum 

 with production of typical shock. Owing to the toxicity of the immune sera, he could 

 not apply this to the guinea pig. Equally significant are his experiments with reverse 

 local anaphylaxis (Arthus phenomenon) discussed below. 



CELLULAR ANAPHYLAXIS 



Investigations of so-called "cellular anaphylaxis" have been concerned principally 

 with erythrocytes. The literature is reviewed by Kritschewsky and Friede," who 

 state that they have produced both active and passive anaphylaxis in the dog by the 

 use of sheep erythrocytes. Various reports have appeared concerning the phenomena 

 in other animals. In all cases there is difi&culty in excluding hemolytic and hemag- 

 glutinative effects since most of the interpretations are based solely on clinical phe- 

 nomena. Especially is this true regarding passive sensitization and specific inhibi- 

 tion of shock. By work upon dogs, Manwaring, Marino, and Boone'^ show that the 



' Williams, O. B., and Van de Carr, R.: Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol. 6° Med., 24, 798. 1927. 



^Hyde, R. R.: Am. J. Hygiene, 7, 614. 1927. 



3 Reed, C. I., and Lamson, R. W.: /. Immunol., 13, 433. 1927. 



''Kopaczewski, W., and Vahram, A.: Compt. rend. Acad, desc, 169, 250. 1919. 



s Karsner, H. T., and Ecker, E. E.: /. Infect. Dis., 34, 636. 1924. 



^Richet, C: Compt. rend. Acad, de sc, 169, 9. 1919. 



^Hussey, R.: Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol. &' Med., 19, 22. 1921. 



* Longcope, W. T.: Physiol. Rev., 3, 240. 1923. 



9 Forssmann, J.: Biochem. Zlschr., no, 133, 164. 1920; Ada path, et microhiol. Scandinav., 2, 

 55- 1925; 3. 749- 1926. 



"Opie, E. L., and Furth, J.: /. Exper. Med., 43,469. 1926. 



" Kritschewsky, I. L., and Friede, K. A.: Centralhl.f. Bakteriol., Abt. I, 96, 56, 68. 1925. 



'-Manwaring, W. H., Marino, H. D., and Boone, T. H.: Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol, or Med., 24, 

 651. 1927. 



