HYPERSENSITIVENESS, PROTEIN INTOXICATION 213 



the results were negative. In some experiments, in which most of the ani- 

 mals showed only mild symptoms, the diminution of CO 2 excretion aver- 

 aged :?") per cent. Locning's more comprehensive study on guinea-pigs and 

 rabbits demonstrated that in anaphylactic shock the fall in body tempera- 

 ture was dependent upon diminution in combustion processes. That, at 

 least, is the most plausible interpretation. The diminished O 2 intake and 

 CO 2 excretion are due, he states, not to any disturbance of heat dissipation, 

 but to an actually lowered heat production resulting from "Nachlassen in 

 der Verbrennungsenergie." These results were confirmed by Leschke, who 

 found in rabbits in which he produced anaphylatoxin fever, a decrease 

 both in O 2 intake and CO 2 output without change of the R. Q. Similar 

 results were obtained with dogs. In anti-anaphylaxis, he failed to demon- 

 strate any alteration in either temperature or metabolism. 



Heat Regulation. To Pfeiffer belongs the credit of first calling 

 attention to the significant alterations in body temperature which accom- 

 pany the response of a sensitized animal to reinjection of the specific 

 protein. Krehl(&), to be sure, first described the temperature effects of the 

 parenteral administration of foreign protein in a normal animal. He 

 showed that fever follows the injection of small doses while a fall in body 

 temperature results from the introduction of large quantities. He and 

 Matthes, even before Richet reported his discovery of anaphylaxis, were 

 struck by the fact that animals which had previously been injected with 

 foreign protein reacted with a higher temperature upon reinjection. A 

 similar observation had, indeed, been made by Buchner while studying 

 the fever-producing action of bacterial proteins. None of these workers, 

 however, appreciated how close he was to the fundamental fact of ana- 

 phylaxis. Pfeiffer pointed out the specificity of the reaction in both active 

 and passive anaphylaxis, and showed besides that it is not demonstrable 

 before the development of the anaphylactic state, that it may be elicited 

 by both the intraperitoneal and intravenous injections, and that by means 

 of it, the non-specific anti-anaphylaxis produced by peptone (Biedl and 

 Kraus) is confirmed. He considered it the most delicate and most accu- 

 rately measurable symptom of anaphylactic shock. Abundant and in- 

 contestable confirmation of the essential features of Pfeiffer's observations 

 soon appeared, but at the same time, certain limitations to this method of 

 measuring anaphylactic reactions were definitely demonstrated. Loewit 

 agreed with Pfeiffer that when animals were reinjected with small doses 

 and did not die in acute anaphylactic shock, that there is temperature 

 drop, but in guinea-pigs with "blizenartig" shock and quick death, he 

 found no definite fall of temperature as part of the reaction. An interest- 

 ing contribution to this question of the temperature reaction in anaphy- 

 laxis was made by Friedberger and his co-workers. They demonstrated 

 quite definitely that the sensitized animal and the normal animal reacted 

 to the injection of foreign protein in much the same way qualitatively. 



