ANAPHYLAXIS 375 



Whether or not sensitization can be accomplished by introduction 

 of the antigen into the intestinal canal, feeding, in other words, is 

 still to some extent an open question and of great importance in 

 view of the many clinical manifestations (urticaria, albuminuria, 

 etc.) which are attributed to possible individual hypersusceptibility 

 to certain proteins taken in the diet (idiosyncrasies). Rosenau and 

 Anderson, in their earliest paper, report success in sensitizing guinea 

 pigs by the feeding of horse meat and horse serum. McClintock and 

 King 54 failed to confirm this, and the observations of other writers 

 seem to bear them out. However, when we consider that Ascoli, 

 Oppenheimer, and others have shown that proteins fed to animals in 

 large quantities may be subsequently demonstrated not only in the 

 circulating blood but occasionally even in the urine by means of the 

 precipitin reaction, there seems to be little room for doubting that 

 antigen may enter the circulation unchanged, though possible only 

 under abnormal local conditions of the intestine. This, together with 

 Eosenau and Anderson's demonstration of the extremely small amount 

 of antigen necessary to sensitize, furnishes all the conditions n( 

 sary for anaphylaxis by way of the intestinal canal. 



A study made by Lesne and Dreyfus 55 seems to us to have ex- 

 plained the contradictory results of other workers on this phase of 

 the problem. Without being able to associate the destruction of the 

 sensitizing function with either the gastric or pancreatic secretions, 

 they were nevertheless successful in showing that sensitization could 

 be carried out regularly if the antigen were injected after laparotomy 

 into the large intestine, whereas similar injections into the stomach or 

 small intestine w r ere negative. In these experiments we must take 

 into consideration that the conditions following laparotomy, such as 

 temporary intestinal atony and congestion, may have exerted con- 

 siderable influence upon the positive outcome of their large intestine 

 injections. Whereas they do not, therefore, permit us to assume the 

 possibility of sensitization through the normal alimentary canal, they 

 nevertheless confirm the assumption of the possibility of sensitiza- 

 tion by this path under the influence of slightly abnormal local con- 

 ditions. 



In this connection Besredka's 56 experiments on the production 

 of anti-anaphylaxis by the intestinal administration of protein are 

 of interest. He found that if sensitized animals were given 5 c. c. 

 of the antigen (milk) by rectum, they were thereby protected from 

 the reaction following in controls upon a second injection. In his 

 later experiments with egg white it appeared that the protection 

 could also be conferred by mouth, but that in this case it developed 



54 McClintock and King. Jour. Inf. Dis., 3, 1906. See section on normal 

 antibodies. 



65 Lesne and Dreyfus. C. E. de la Soc. BioL, Vol. 70, p. 136, 1911. 

 66 Besredka. C. E. de la Soc. Biol., Vol. 65, 1908; Vol. 70, 1911. 



