114 Chapter V 



Ehrlich and Morgenroth 1 quite independently of Bordet have 

 shown that an antihaemotoxic serum is very rich in anticytase. After 

 making a number of injections of normal horse's serum (very rich in 

 cytase) into a goat, they obtained in the blood serum of the latter an 

 anticytase very active against the cytase of the horse. This antitoxic 

 serum of the goat, as might be anticipated, contains no antifixative, 

 the horse's serum that served for the injections coming from normal 

 horses which contained no, or very little, fixative. Even in another 

 case, where these investigators 2 injected a dog with sheep's serum 

 very rich in fixative specific for the red corpuscles of the dog, they 

 did not succeed in obtaining any antifixative. These observations in 

 no way diminish the value of the discovery of the autifixative by 

 Bordet, though they demonstrate that this antitoxin cannot, in 

 certain cases, be found in the serum. Ehrlich and Morgenroth them- 

 selves throw out, in this connection, the suggestion that in these 

 cases the antifixative remains linked to the cell which produces it, 

 without being thrown off into the blood. 



The very precise data that we have just summarised do not seem 

 to agree with the statements of certain other investigators. Thus 

 [122] Schiitze 3 , from his researches on the antihaemotoxic serum of guinea- 

 pigs, directed against the rabbit's haemotoxin, has arrived at the 

 conclusion that in the former an autifixative only is produced. As 

 he merely injected into his guinea-pigs haemotoxic rabbit's serum 

 that had been heated to 60 C. and consequently deprived of the 

 macrocytase, he concluded that in this serum there remained only 

 the specific fixative capable of provoking the formation of an anti- 

 toxin. This must consequently be an antifixative. Paul Miiller 4 came 

 to a similar conclusion, after injecting rabbits with the heated hae- 

 motoxic serum of fowls. These injections caused the formation in the 

 rabbit's serum of an antitoxin that Miiller regarded as an antifixative. 



Ehrlich and Morgenroth 5 objected to this interpretation, taking 

 their stand on experiments made with the serums of normal animals. 

 They were able to show that these serums, when injected in the fresh 

 state or after being heated to 60 C., caused the production of a corre- 

 sponding antihaemotoxin which is nothing but an anticytase. When 



1 Berl. klin. Wchnschr., 1900, S. 684. Ehrlich, "Croonian Lecture," Proc. 

 R(jy. Soc. London, 1900, Vol. LXVI, p. 424. 



2 Berl. klin. Wchnschr., 1901, 8. 570. 



3 Deutsche med. Wchnschr., Leipzig, 1900, 8. 431. 



* Centralbl.f. Bakterinl. u . Parantenk., I* Abt., Jena, 1901, Bd. xxix, 8. 175. 

 6 Bert. Win. Wchntchr., 1901, 8. 251. 



