268 INFECTION AND IMMUNITY. 



Hence the explanation of group bacteriolysis is 

 identical with that of group agglutination. 

 Multiplicity There is a wide difference of opinion regarding 



of Comple- . , . . 



the unity of complement, or alexm, its synonym. 

 Bordet and his followers stand for the unity of the 

 alexins, and their position rests on the fact that a 

 given normal serum may be used to activate many 

 different amboceptors. We should appreciate that 

 this phenomenon might depend on the broad range 

 of action of a single complement, or on the pres- 

 ence of different complements each being specific 

 for a particular amboceptor. Ehrlich and his 

 school take the latter view and have actually dem- 

 onstrated a multiplicity of complements in a few 

 instances. Ehrlich and Sachs treated fresh nor- 

 mal serums (complement) in various ways, such 

 as digestion with papain, partial destruction with 

 alkalies, heat, etc., and were able by these methods 

 to destroy the complement for one kind of ambo- 

 ceptor, while the serum still retained its power for 

 activating other amboceptors. Accordingly, it 

 seems clear that the ability of a normal serum to 

 activate a given amboceptor depends not only on 

 the presence of complement in a general sense, but 

 on the presence of a suitable complement, i. e., one 

 the haptophore of which corresponds to the com- 

 plementophilous haptophore of the amboceptor. 

 This point is of great importance in reference to 

 the treatment of infectious diseases with antibac- 

 terial serums, for the efficacy of the serum would 

 seem to depend on the introduction of suitable 

 complement in conjunction with the amboceptors, 

 or on the existence of such complement in the body 

 of the patient. 



