.1 \ t/'//r/..i \/N ni; M.i.r.iu.y 201 



There is, liowcvcr, imu-li (lou])t as to the identity of tlie process of 

 anaphylatoxin formation (as it occurs when antigren, antibody and 

 complement are incubated in vitro) and the process of anaphylactic 

 intoxication. In the first place, a poisono^^s character, apparently 

 identical with this "anapliylatoxin,'' may be griven to serum without 

 the use of any specific antibody whatever; merely agitating fresh 

 serum with any finely divided foreign material that offers large total 

 surfaces, such as kaolin, agar, or starch, is sufficient, as also is treat- 

 ment with li])oid solvents, such as chloroform (Jobling). In fact, 

 merely removing the fibrin from the plasma may make the resultant 

 serum highly toxic, even for the very animal from which it came. 

 Furthermore, if anaphylactic shock were the result of anaphylatoxin 

 formation in the sensitized animal through the reaction of antigen with 

 antibody and complement, the intoxication should occur if antibod}'" 

 and antigen are injected simultaneously into an animal ; but as a mat- 

 ter of fact the animal receiving antibody in passive sensitization will 

 not react unless the antigen is injected at least three hours after 

 the sensitizing serum is injected. ^^'^ This incubation period is sup- 

 posed to be required for the anaphylactic antibody to be fixed in the 

 cells where the reaction takes place (Otto), and perhaps in modifica- 

 tion of the antibody so that it has a greater afifinity for the antigen 

 than it has while free in the serum (Weil) ^^*'; also in acquiring the 

 capacity to affect the cells after union with the specific antigen. Fi- 

 nally, the isolated noustriated muscle tissue (uterus) of a sensitized 

 animal gives specific reactions when brought in contact with the 

 specific antigen, no matter how thoroughly the animal's blood has 

 been removed from the tissues ; whereas, the uterine muscle of an ani- 

 mal injected with sensitizing immune serum only one hour before kill- 

 ing does not react when in contact with specific antigen. Weil dis- 

 putes the toxic nature of anaphylaxis, even in the intracellular reac- 

 tion, which he calls a "cellular discharge." 



Nevertheless, the formation of anaphylatoxin is an interesting phe- 

 nomenon which may well be of importance in human intoxications, 

 even if it is not the essential phenomenon of the anaphylactic intoxica- 

 tion. So readily is blood serum made toxic in vitro that it seems most 

 highly probable that a similar development of toxicity may take place 

 in the body. Jobling ^^^ has found that intoxication from anaphyla- 

 toxin formation seems to occur when kaolin is injected intravenously 

 into animals, and hence it is quite possible that the presence in the 

 blood of abnonnal, finely divided bodies, such as precipitated proteins, 

 cellular fragments, even bacteria, may cause anaphylatoxin formation 

 in vivo just as they do in vitro. 



The mechanism of anaphylatoxin formation is not yet understood^ 



sidSee Weil, Jour. Med. Ees.. 1014 (30), 87: Jour. Tnimuiiol., lOlf, (1), 100. 



sieJour. Med. Res., 1015 (32), 107. 



3if Jobling, Petersen and Eggstein, Jonr. Exp. Med., 1015 (22), 500. 



