BACTERIAL ANAPHYLAXIS 



believes in specific endotoxins, basing his opinion on the individually 

 characteristic nature of the infections caused by supposedly endo- 

 toxic bacteria. The differences in the degrees of toxicity, moreover, 

 of extracts obtained by the same technique from different micro- 

 organisms would certainly tend to add some weight to his argument. 

 We need only to recall to memory the greater toxicity of bouillon 

 culture extracts of B. dysenterice Shiga-Kruse as compared with 

 similar extracts of B. dysenterice Flexner or Hiss-Russell, or the 

 similar difference between typhoid and colon extracts. Altogether 

 the problem is an involved one, for the recent claims of Kraus, 25 

 Doerr, 26 27 and others of having discovered true (antitoxin-forming) 

 soluble toxins 28 in such cultures as those of cholera, dysentery 

 Shiga, and typhoid bacilli add another complication. 



As a matter of fact, the entire problem of endotoxins is one which 

 calls for reexamination in that the knowledge gained of recent years 

 has opened a number of alternative explanations for the primary 

 toxicity of such bacteria as the typhoid bacillus. Briefly summarized 

 they are: (1) The actual intracellular existence of specific endo- 

 toxins in the sense of Pfeiffer 29 (toxalbumin). (2) The production 

 of toxic split products in the animal body from the bacterial protein 

 by proteolytic cleavage brought about by non-specific serum protease 

 (Jobling and Petersen) 29 or by the cooperation of antibody and 

 alexin (Friedberger). (3) The absorption of antienzymes by the 

 bacteria with consequent activation of the serum protease which then 

 splits off toxic substances from the plasma protein (Jobling and 

 Petersen). (4) The presence of non-specific toxic substances in the 

 bacterial cell body, of the nature of peptones, primary and second- 

 ary albumoses, etc., which are liberated by lysis from the bacterial 

 cell after cell death. This conception would differ from that of 

 Pfeiffer in that the intercellular substances are conceived as in no 

 sense specific toxic proteins, but rather entirely non-specific constit- 

 uents representing the type of poisons conceived as proteolytically 

 produced from the antigen by Vaughan and others. This last view, 

 though hitherto not particularly considered, should nevertheless in 

 our opinion be regarded as at least a possible explanation for a part 

 of the toxic manifestations resulting from the injection of bacteria 

 of this class. Moreover, such a possibility is suggested by the fact 

 that bacterial protein is relatively poor in antigenic properties. 

 Doerr, also, has considered this in stating that he believed the diffi- 

 culty of producing anaphylaxis with bacteria was in part due to 

 the fact that their body substances were relatively poor in coagulable 



26 Kraus. MonatscJir. f. Gesundheitspflege, No. 11, 1904. 



26 Kraus u. Doerr. Wien. klin. Woch., No. 42, 1905. 



27 Kraus. "Kraus u. Levaditi Handbuch," Vol. 1, p. 180. 



28 Exotoxins. 



29 Zinsser and Parker. Journal of Exp. Med., September, 1917. 



