CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF ANAPHYLAXIS 437 



common to the particular species. Further than this, Andre jew 30 

 claims to have shown that it is possible to sensitize an animal with 

 its own lens protein. A few guinea pigs injected by him with their 

 own lens proteins, and reinjected with the same substances after a 

 suitable interval, reacted with definite anaphy lactic symptoms. The 

 possibility is thus given than an animal or human being could become 

 sensitized by its own organ proteins if these were traumatically or 

 otherwise destroyed and absorbed. The train of reasoning is similar 

 to that which has given much hope of enlightenment to pathologists 

 when the earlier work upon the cytotoxins was done. Rosenau and 

 Anderson, 31 for instance, injected guinea pigs with guinea pig pla- 

 centa, and found that, after the usual period of incubation, the ani- 

 mals reacted to a second injection with marked symptoms of anaphy- 

 laxis. On the basis of these experiments Rosenau and Anderson 

 suggest that certain of the toxemias of pregnancy are of anaphylactic 

 origin. They believe that it is possible that a mother may become 

 sensitized by the "autolytic products of her own placenta/ 7 the result 

 being eclampsia. 



By a similar process of reasoning Elschnig 32 has attempted to 

 explain sympathetic ophthalmia. He claims to have shown that the 

 laws of organ specificity apply to the proteins (especially the pig- 

 ment) of the uveal tract. The destruction and absorption of injured 

 uveal tissue, according to him, induce the formation of organ- 

 specific antibodies by which the remaining uveal structures of the 

 same, as well as of the opposite, eye are sensitized. The consequence 

 is a "sympathetic" inflammation which "is to be regarded purely as 

 an anaphylactic reaction." 



These and other similar suggestions less well founded experi- 

 mentally illustrate the possibilities for clinical reasoning furnished 

 by a knowledge of the anaphylactic phenomena. In no cases of this 

 sort, however, can the association with anaphylaxis be as yet re- 

 garded as more than an extremely interesting suggestion. 



From all that has gone before it is quite evident that most of 

 the positive facts which may be regarded as determined concerning 

 the phenomena of anaphylaxis have been obtained in experiments 

 with small and very sensitive animals, comparatively large and 

 measured quantities of antigen, and often by the violent method of 

 intravenous injection in which the entire mass of antigen comes 

 rapidly into contact with the available antibodies and the vulnerable 

 tissues. We cannot, therefore, draw rigid parallels between these 

 experiments and clinical manifestations in human beings in whom 



30 Andrejew. Arb. a. d. kais. Gesundh., Vol. 30, 1909. 



31 Rosenau and Anderson. U. S. Pub. Health and M. H. S. Hug. Lab. 

 Bull 45, 1908. 



32 Elschnig. Von Graefe's Archiv f. OphthaL, Vol. 75, p. 459 ; Vol. 76, 

 p. 509; Vol. 78, p. 549. 



