BACTERIAL ANAPHYLAXIS 413 



but, 3 Delanoe, 4 and others, and the essential points of Rosenau and 

 Anderson's experiments were confirmed. Although Kraus and 

 Doerr succeeded in frequently sensitizing guinea pigs with a single 

 injection of bacteria, this was not found to be the most favorable 

 method for sensitization. Braun 5 obtained entirely negative results 

 by such a procedure, but this may well have been because in the first 

 place single sensitization with bacteria is evidently irregular in 

 result, and because Braun carried out his intravenous test-injection 

 slowly, a technique by which Friedberger found later that shock 

 could be avoided. Delanoe, in the main, confirmed the fact that 

 bacterial sensitization was possible, but denied the specificity of the 

 resulting anaphylaxis, in that he succeeded in producing shock in 

 tubercle-sensitized guinea pigs with comparatively large amounts 

 of typhoid, paratyphoid, and other bacilli, and conversely found 

 typhoid-sensitized guinea pigs hypersusceptible to tubercle-injec- 

 tions. Other workers, however, notably Kraus and Doerr, Holobut, 

 and Kraus and Admiradzibi, 6 agree that the reaction is specific, at 

 least in the same limits within which other serum reactions may be 

 called specific. 



Holobut then developed a technique of sensitization with bac- 

 teria more reliable than any which had been previously employed by 

 other workers. He found that the most regularly successful results 

 were obtained when he injected small quantities of bacteria (1/100 

 loopful) daily for ten days, subcutaneously, and tested with fairly 

 large amounts (1-2 c. c. of an emulsion of the bacteria) intrave- 

 nously about 3 weeks after the last sensitizing injection. This is in 

 keeping with later experience, and in our own work with typhoid 

 immunization in young goats we have found that anaphy lactic 

 reactions were not observed unless the goats had previously 

 received several injections. A second injection never elicited 

 symptoms. 



It is not at all unlikely that this difference between serum sensi- 

 tization and bacterial sensitization is due to the comparatively larger 

 amounts of protein injected with very small volumes of serum than 

 is the case with even the thickest bacterial emulsions. When larger 

 sensitizing quantities of bacteria are used (which is often difficult 

 because of the primarily toxic nature of some of the bacteria) a 

 single sensitization gives positive results in guinea pigs more fre- 

 quently than when the smaller amounts are used. 



Since it was objected to many of the results at first obtained with 

 bacterial sensitization that they might have been due to the primarily 



3 Holobut. Zeitschr. f. Immunitatsforsch., Vol. 3, 1909. 



* Delanoe. C. E. de la Soc. de Biol, Vol. 66, 1909, pp. 207, 252, 348, 389. 



5 Braun. Quoted by Bail and Weil, Zeitschr. f. Immunitatsforsch., Vol. 

 4, 1910. 



6 Kraus u. Admiradzibi. Zeitschr. f. Immunitatsforsch., Vol. 4, 1910. 



