556 ANAPHYLAXIS 



graphic method, employing the excised uteri of sensitized pigs and apply- 

 ing the antigen direct, decided the question in favor of the cellular 

 theory. In a similar study Weil * reached the same conclusions, namely, 

 that the anaphylactic condition is entirely dependent upon the sensi- 

 tization of the cells of the body; that all conditions that in any way in- 

 fluence the degree of sensitiveness of the cells in the same degree alter 

 the anaphylactic state, or sensitiveness, of the animal. It does not seem 

 possible, however, entirely to exclude the agency of the antibodies in the 

 blood, as Weil apparently does, or we would be at a loss to explain the 

 mechanism of passive anaphylaxis. It would appear that both the 

 attached and the free antibodies, particularly the former, contribute 

 toward the production of the anaphylactic response. 



THEORIES OF ANAPHYLAXIS 



With the foregoing explanation of the most widely accepted theory 

 of anaphylaxis, I may briefly summarize all the more important theories 

 advanced from time to time in explanation of the process. These 

 include the following. 



1. Richet held that the sensitizer, or anaphylactogen, contains a 

 substance which he called " congestion" (because he did his original 

 work with extracts of the tentacles of sea anemones, which are toxic 

 and produce congestion of the internal organs), and that this generates 

 in the animal another substance, known as the "toxogenin." The 

 reaction between the latter and the homologous protein on reinjection 

 sets free a poison, "apotoxin, " which, because of its effect on the nervous 

 system, produces the symptoms of anaphylaxis. This theory is prac- 

 tically the same as that generally accepted to-day, except that the anti- 

 gen is not of necessity primarily toxic for the animal. 



2. Hamburger and Moro suggest that the first injection leads to the 

 formation of precipitins, and that on reinjection precipitates are formed; 

 these they contend, may, by the formation of capillary emboli, produce 

 acute anaphylaxis, or at least that precipitin formation runs parallel 

 with the antibody formation. The symptoms of anaphylaxis, however, 

 are not those of embolism, and there is no evidence to show that pre- 

 cipitation occurs in vivo, although, as Zinsser points out, precipitins may 

 play the role of sensitizers of the antigen, preparing them for final lysis 

 or cleavage by a complement. In other words, the precipitin would act 

 as an amboceptor, differing, however, from our general conception of 



1 Jour. Med. Research, 1914, 30, No. 2, 87. 



