158 INFECTION AND RESISTANCE 



ceptor, but the protecting substance did act in direct antagonism to 

 the complement itself. 



From the fact that similar 'anticomplements could be produced 

 when inactivated serum was injected into animals, they concluded 

 that, on inactivation, there was not a complete destruction of the 

 complement, but that during the process of heating the zymophore 

 group of the complement only was- injured, the' "haptophore group," 

 by means of which union to the tissue elements would take place, 

 and through which, therefore, specific antibody production would be 

 incited, remaining intact. Such altered complement they speak of 

 as "complementoid." 



Bordet has made similar observations upon the production of anti- 

 alexins by the injection into animals both of active and of inactive 

 serum, but in the light of further researches, which will be discussed 

 in connection with the problems of alexin-fixation, chiefly those of Mo- 

 reschi and of Gay, we are forced to the conclusion that the existence of 

 true anticomplements* is by no means certain, and that the older evi- 

 dence in their favor is found to be. unconvincing at the present time. 



In the preceding paragraphs we have emphasized the. conception* 

 of the.cytolytic phenomena formulated by Ehrlich and his followers, 

 and although we have brought out, whenever possible, 'the objections 

 of other investigators to many of these opinions, we have not yet 

 followed out in a systematic manner the reasoning of any of Ehrlich' s 

 opponents. In opposition to the views of his school the leading 

 position has been taken by Bordet, who, after all, furnished in .his 

 investigations the fundamental facts which have led to a comprehen- 

 sion of the cytolytic processes. In explaining Bordet's views we can 

 do no better than to follow out his own exposition as set forth in his 

 article, "A General Resume of Immunity," 54 published with a collec- 

 tion of his papers. He expresses himself, in substance, as follows: 



That the antigen, in the form of bacteria, blood cells, or cells of 

 any other nature, meets in the body of the treated animal a "recep- 

 tor" complex with which it unites is, of course, plain and agreed to 

 by everyone. That the antibody produced by the tissues in response 

 to such union of antigen with receptor is a direct product of the cells 

 containing the receptors is likely. It is by no means certain, how- 

 ever, or, at any rate, it has never been experimentally demonstrated, 

 that, as Ehrlich maintains, the antibody is identical with the original 

 receptor by which the antigen was fixed or anchored to the tissue 

 cell. It might be assumed with equal justice that the cells of the 

 immunized animal could build up a new substance, not identical with 

 the receptors, in consequence of stimulation by the antigen. It is 

 also by no means certain whether the injected antigen reacts with 

 the body cells themselves or with the normal antibodies which we 



6 * '""Studies in Immunity" oy Bordet and collaborators. Gay, Wiley & 

 Sons, N. Y., 1909. 



