218 THE PRINCIPLES OF IMMUNOLOGY 



some similar disturbance may appear as the result of injection of heter- 

 ologous sera. 



In view of the great specificity of anaphylaxis it was hoped that 

 by this means organ specificity might be demonstrated. Ranzi used 

 extracts of liver, kidney, spleen and ovary and found that these gave 

 species reactions with serum, but that there was no evidence of organ 

 specificity. Pfeiffer pointed out that the organs employed by Ranzi 

 contained blood and therefore could not be expected to show more 

 than species reactions. He washed the organs apparently free from 

 blood and found that animals sensitized to a given organ extract respond 

 somewhat more markedly to that extract than to extracts of other 

 organs, i.e., there is a relative specificity. This was found to be true 

 in somewhat lesser degree by Pearce, Karsner and Eisenbrey. Minet 

 and Bruyant desensitized with -serum and then attempted to produce 

 shock by the organ extracts ; they failed to demonstrate organ specificity. 

 Bell has pointed out the fact that the most careful perfusion of organs 

 fails to remove the blood completely, and it appears that Minet and 

 Bruyant's conclusions must hold for the present. Extracts of sperma- 

 tozoa and of ovary fail to exhibit organ specificity, but crystalline lens 

 behaves as it does in the reactions of precipitation and cytolysis. 

 Numerous investigators have shown that the lenses of different species 

 react with each other but that serum fails to interact as either sensi- 

 tizer or intoxicating body with the serum of the species from which 

 the lens was taken. 



There is no doubt that anaphylaxis produced by bacterial 

 emulsions or extracts is specific, but reports vary as to the presence 

 of group reactions. Delanoe holds that group reactions appear, 

 whereas Kraus and his collaborators maintain the absolute specificity 

 of bacterial anaphylaxis. 



Theories of the Reaction of Anaphylaxis. In order to avoid any 

 more confusion than is necessary it seems well to review these theories 

 in groups rather than in historical sequence. The most important 

 difference of opinion is as to whether or not a poisonous substance is 

 produced in the reaction. If not it would appear to be necessary to 

 suppose that some sort of reaction occurs in the cells of the body or 

 in the body fluids, perhaps in the nature of a liberation of energy on 

 the part of the cells or in some form of disturbed colloidal or enzymatic 

 balance of the fluids. If a toxic substance is formed it may be pro- 

 duced in the cells or in the circulating fluids. This may be the result 

 of partial destruction of the proteins of the body or of the introduced 

 protein, or it may appear as a new body which is formed by substances 

 produced by the first injection coming in contact with the antigen upon 

 second injection. This summary gives the essentials of the con- 

 troversy, and a further elaboration follows. 



Anaphylactic Poisons. Richet formulated the hypothesis that the 

 primary injection of protein produces a substance in the body which 

 he named toxogenine. Upon second injection the antigen is supposed to 

 combine with the toxogenine which has been produced during the period 



