ANTI-ENZYMES 61 



to support the hypothesis that the presence of ])ro(hicts of protein 

 cleavage in the serum is responsible for the antitryptic action, but this 

 has not been confirmed. Attempts have been made to regulate sup- 

 purative processes by the introduction of either leucocytic proteases, 

 or antiprotease in the form of active serum (see Wiens^^). Whether 

 antiprotease can be specifically developed by immunizing with leuco- 

 protease is a matter of disagreement,^^ but no increase of antiprotease 

 follows the enormous destruction of leucocytes caused by injecting 

 thorium- A'. ^2 



The anti-enzymatic property obtained in the serum by injecting 

 enzj'mes into animals differs from that normall}'" present in the serum 

 in many ways. It may be made much stronger than it ever is in 

 normal serum, and against many varieties of enzymes for which an 

 anti-enzjaiie does not naturally exist. Especiall}^ important is the 

 fact that it is highly specific (v. Eisler); serum of an animal immu- 

 nized against dog trypsin will show a much greater ef5"ect against dog 

 trypsin than it does against trypsin from other animals. This fact 

 permits us to distinguish between enzymes of apparently similar 

 nature but of different origin, and proves that they have a struc- 

 ture at least in some respects different from one another, since they 

 are combined by different antibodies. Apparently that element of 

 the enzymes which determines their action on specific substances is 

 involved in their antigenic properties, since antiproteases will not 

 inhibit diastase or lipase. This specificity is limited, however, for 

 the anti-enzymes for leucocytic and pancreatic proteases are said to be 

 identical. ^^ Artificial immune serum is said to have been obtained 

 against trj^psin, pepsin, ^^ lipase, emulsin,^'^ autoh-tic enzymes, laccase, 

 amylase, invertin, diastase, tjTOsinase, urease,^^ rennin, catalase, and 

 fibrin ferment. ^^ By immunization against bacteria an immunity 

 against their proteolytic enzymes is also obtained, ^^ which is inde- 

 pendent of and different from antitr3^psin, being especially in the 

 globulin fraction, while the antibody for pancreatic trypsin is chiefly 

 in the albumin (Kammerer^^). From the work of Kirchheim and 

 Reinicke^^ it seems probable that the increased resistance following 



81 See Bradley, Jour. Hyg., 1910 (12), 209. 



*- G. Rosenow and Farber, Zeit. exp. Med., 1914 (3), 377. 



8' Jochmann and Kantorowicz, Mlinch. med. "Woch., 1908 (55), 728. 



«^ Bayliss (Jour, of Physiol., 1912 (43), 455) was unable to obtain antiemulsin, 

 and Pozerski (Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 1909 (23), 205) failed to obtain antipapain, 

 but positive results are reported by v. Stenitzer (Biochem. Zeit.. 1908 (9), 382). 



** Jacoby says that the disappearance of urease from the blood after repeated 

 injection does not depend on the formation of an antienzyme (Biochem. Zeit., 

 1916 (74), 97). 



8* For a review of much of the earlier literature on this subject see Schiitze, 

 Deut. med. Woch., 1904 (30), 308. 



8' Dungern, Miinch. med. Wochenschr., 1898 (45), 1040; Bertiau, Cent, f . 

 Bact., 1914 (74), 374. 



s8 Deut. .\rch. klin. Med., 1911 (103), 341. 



«9 Arch. exp. Path., 1914 (77), 412. 



