THE CELLULAR THEORY OF ANAPHYLAXIS 595 



Pearce and Eisenbrey, 1 who transferred the blood of a sensitized animal 

 to a normal animal and the blood of a normal animal to a sensitized one, 

 finding that the latter, but not the former, reacted when the antigen 

 was injected as soon as the transfusions were completed; the work 

 of Coca, 2 who found that sensitized guinea-pigs would still react after 

 being thoroughly bled and perfused with salt solution; the investigations 

 of Schultz, 3 Dale, 4 and particularly of Weil, 5 showing that the excised 

 and washed muscles of sensitized animals would react in vitro in a bath 

 of Ringer's solution when the antigen was added, support most strongly 

 the cellular theory of anaphylaxis as emphasized also in the work and 

 recent communications of Doerr. 6 



In the opinion of Weil, Doerr, Bayliss, Coca, and others the " cellular" 

 theory is the only tenable one today. According to this theory of ana- 

 phylaxis, the antibody is in or on the body cells; upon union with the 

 antigen the cells undergo a physical shock which has been likened to 

 an electric shock, and this constitutes the basis of the anaphylactic 

 reaction without the formation of any intermediate or chemical poison. 



As emphasized by Weil 7 there is no direct evidence of the production 

 of a chemical poison or anaphylatoxin during or after an anaphylactic 

 reaction in the living animal. This poison has not been satisfactorily 

 demonstrated in the blood and in animals recovering from a general ana- 

 phylactic reaction, the phenomena being more suggestive of a transitory 

 "shock" than of an intoxication with a chemical poison. 



On the other hand, the mass of experimental evidence indicating 

 that the anaphylactic reaction is not purely cellular, but at least in part 

 an intravascular reaction, is too strong to be discarded. As pointed out 

 by Zinsser and Young, 8 the necessary time usually required in passive 

 anaphylaxis between the injection of immune serum and antigen may 

 be due to slow union between antigen and antibody in the blood-stream, 

 on the basis that the anaphylactic reaction involves the interaction of 

 colloids and that a protective colloid is responsible for the slow union 

 of antigen and antibody unless its influence is obviated by exact quanti- 

 tative proportions between antigen and antibody, which under experi- 

 mental conditions may be secured in a more or less accidental manner. 



1 Congr. Amer. Phys. and Surg., 1910, viii, 402. 



2 Ztsch. f. Immunitatsf., orig., 1914, xx, 622. 



3 Jour. Pharmacol. and Exper. Therap., 1910, 1, 549. 



4 Jour. Pharmacol. and Exper. Therap., 1913, iv, 167. 



5 Jour. Med. Research, 1914, xxx, 87. 



6 Ergebnisse der Immunitatsf., Reichhardt, Berlin, 1914, 1, 257. 



7 Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol. and Med., 1915, xiii, 23 (1087). 



8 Jour. Exper. Med., 1913, xvii, 396. 



