PRODUCTION OF THE ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK 147 



of the anaphylactic shock, for it showed conclusively that humoral 

 factors are here at play. 



Production of the Anaphylactic Shock. Richet originally pro- 

 pounded the hypothesis that as a result of the first injection a 

 special antibody is formed, which he termed the toxogenin, and 

 that this then splits off a highly toxic poison from the primary 

 toxin, c. g., from the anaphylactogenic principle of his actino- 

 congestin. This hypothesis, however, cannot be applied to the 

 anaphylactic reaction which follows the administration of non- 

 toxic antigens, and is evidently based upon false premises. Other 

 writers, such as Weichardt, v. Pirquet and Schick, Wolff-Eisner, 

 Friedemann and Isaac, also assume the formation of antibodies, 

 but suppose that a special toxin is set free from the corresponding 

 non-toxic antigen when the two meet. Regarding the manner in 

 which this occurs, different possibilities, of course, suggest them- 

 selves. Led by his observations on the anaphylactic reaction which 

 follows the introduction of alien cells into the rabbit, Wolff-Eisner 

 assumed a lytic action on the part of the anaphylactic antibody 

 upon the corresponding albuminous antigen, analogous to the lytic 

 action of the cytotoxins, (bacteriolysins, e. g.), and a consequent 

 liberation of endotoxin-like substances. Weichardt arrived at 

 similar conclusions on the basis of analogous experiments with 

 placental cells, but, unlike Wolff-Eisner, he assumed that the lytic 

 action of the antibody does not set free preformed endotoxins, but 

 that the lysis is followed by further chemical changes. 



More recent investigations, notably by Dorr and Russ, have 

 rendered it highly probable that the antibody in question is really 

 a precipitin, and the predominating idea at present is that an ana- 

 phylactic toxin is in some manner split off from the corresponding 

 precipitate through the agency of complement. This view is, as a 

 matter of fact, supported by numerous observations. It has thus 

 been shown that those split-products of the albumins which no longer 

 give rise to precipitin formation, likewise do not act as sensibilisino- 

 gens, and that there does not exist a single precipitinogenic protein 

 which has not also anaphylaxis producing properties. Precipitating 

 sera, moreover, always contain the anaphylactic reaction product. 

 \\ lu-ther or not special albuminolytic amboceptors may also be 

 concerned in the anaphylactic reaction must thus remain an open 

 question. So much is certain that precipitin formation and anaphyl- 



