( 859 ) 
Physiology. — “Contributions to the study of serum-anaphylacis.” 
(Br Communication). By Dr. J. G. Sieeswisk, Foreign 
Member of the Pasteur Institute at Brussels. (Communicated 
by Prof. C. H. H. Sproncx). 
(Communicated in the meeting of March 27 1909). 
About Immunity-reactions in serum-anaphylaxis. 
It may be assumed on sure grounds that only an intentional 
application of the methods of the doctrine of immunity will serve 
to give us some insight into the mechanism of anaphylaxis. Already 
in my first communication I said something about this subject: 
among others, that, with the reaction of sensitized animals on the 
toxie serum-injection alexine is fixed in the organism, and also that 
already normal blood of the guineapig is able to fix the toxic prin- 
ciple of horse-serum. I then thought I was entitled to put forth the 
assuinption that also other tissues or organs of the guineapig should 
be capable of such a fixation, a supposition that had also occurred 
to other investigators, but for which they had found no proofs in 
their experiments. 
However, it is quite possible that the blood corpuscles in this case 
take up a peculiar position, and that for the supposed fixation of the 
toxic matter on other organs (e.g. cerebral tissue) the intervention 
of the bodily fluids of sensitive animals is necessary. Such experiments 
— as far as I know — have not yet been made. Yet they promise 
favourable results, especially now that in the meantime I have 
succeeded in giving a more firm experimental basis to the supposition, 
likewise put forth in my first communication, that in the sensitized 
animal the cellular affinity for the here active elements of horse- 
serum should still be enhanced. : 
Here we had namely to do with the part of serum and corpuscles 
of sensitive guineapigs in the anaphylactic reaction. I have herein 
applied the toxic seruminjection directly in the circulation (carotisy, 
one or a few minutes later I bled the animals to death, and left the 
blood to itself for some length of time. I surmised namely that, 
seeing that with this treatment the animals react much quicker and 
much more violently than with the intraperitoneal injection, probable 
changes in the biological qualities of the cells or fluids would then 
also be most striking. 
Now if we compare the bloodserum of a sensitive guineapig, treated 
thus, before and after the intravascular injection with that of a 
58* 
