BIOCHEMICAL FEATURES 95 



pigs insusceptible to subsequent injections of toxic pneumococcal 

 autolysates. Although the duration of this protection was not men- 

 tioned, the statements point to a refractory state or temporary 

 tolerance so characteristic of degraded proteins and not to an im- 

 mune condition. 



In a second communication, Rosenow 1167 described other charac- 

 ters and properties of the poisonous substance. It was destroyed 

 when the clear autolysate was heated for twenty minutes at 60°, 

 as well as by weak solutions of hydrochloric acid ; it was adsorbed 

 by animal charcoal from which it could be recovered by ether. 

 From its chemical behavior the author decided that the toxin was 

 probably a base containing amino groups. He concluded by say- 

 ing, "Indications have been obtained showing that during pneumo- 

 coccus infections toxic substances are produced which do not call 

 forth any immunizing response." 



In a third paper, Rosenow 1168 ascribed the production of the 

 toxic material to the action of a proteolytic enzyme present in ex- 

 tracts and autolysates of the pneumococcal cell, and in a conclud- 

 ing report 1169 described the action of various pneumococcal prod- 

 ucts on dogs. The symptoms and lesions were strikingly like those 

 observed in immediate canine anaphylactic shock. The hemor- 

 rhages, especially those in the intestines, the effect on the respira- 

 tion, the extreme degree of cyanosis, the delayed coagulation of the 

 blood, and the presence of carbon dioxide in the stomach indi- 

 cated to Rosenow that the chief effects of the toxic substances 

 were due to an interference with normal oxidative processes. The 

 action of the autolysates closely resembled that of protein cleav- 

 age products and, according to Rosenow's view, it made no essen- 

 tial difference whether the poisonous substances were formed in 

 vitro, in the consolidated lung in man, or at once in sensitized 

 dogs, since they were all of the same general nature and their ef- 

 fects differed only in degree and not in kind. 



The anaphylactoid shock seen after the intravenous injection of 

 pneumococcal extracts into guinea pigs has also been reported by 



