THE ANTHRAX PROTEIN 203 



the two there are many split products, of varied sizes, 

 which are poisonous. Besides, some of the amino-acids 

 may be converted into highly poisonous substances. 

 Whether a given protein molecule, on being disrupted, sup- 

 plies an active poison or not is determined by the lines of 

 cleavage and these are dependent upon the cleavage agent 

 and the conditions under which it acts. The work of Fischer, 

 as valuable as it is, has been and is of little or no service in 

 elucidating the processes of parenteral digestion, which must 

 be better understood before we can read the first line in the 

 true history of disease, either exogenous or endogenous. 



Rosenau and Anderson 1 sensitized animals by subcu- 

 taneous injections of extracts of the anthrax bacillus. 

 Sobernheim 2 was not able to confirm this work, and made 

 some statements that deserve attention. He said that the 

 cell substance of the anthrax bacillus is quite different 

 chemically and biologically from that of other bacteria, 

 and that it is wholly devoid of poisonous properties, what- 

 ever the amount and method of administration may be. 

 Our own work, as already stated, shows that this is not 

 true. Busson 3 has reinvestigated this question of sensiti- 

 zation with anthrax protein. Preisz 4 has shown that 

 when the anthrax bacillus is grown at a high temperature 

 (42.5 C.) after the manner used by Pasteur in preparing 

 his vaccine, the membrane becomes mucilaginous and 

 more permeable. With bacilli thus prepared Busson suc- 

 ceeded in inducing a mild form of sensitization by intra- 

 peritoneal injections. The sensitized state was recognized 

 by a more marked elevation of temperature over the con- 

 trols on reinjection. It is undoubtedly true that the anthrax 

 bacillus is protected by its capsule against the action of 

 ferments produced in the bodies of infected animals, but 

 that anthrax protein is so radically different from other 



1 Hygienic Lab. Bull., 1907, No. 36. 



2 Kraus und Levaditi, Handbuch d. Technik u. Methodik d. Immuni- 

 tatsforschung, ii. 



3 Zeitsch. f. Immunitatsforschung, 1912, xii, 671 



4 Centralbl. f. Bak., 1911, Iviii. 



