HEMOLYSIS BY HUMAN SERUMS 



By E. R. RUEDIGER 



{From the Biological Laboratory, Bureau of Science, Manila, P. I.) 



Many different corpuscles have been advocated for the 

 complement-fixation test for syphilis, utilizing the human comple- 

 ment and hsemolytic amboceptor normally present in the serum 

 to be tested, and many different hsemolytic systems have been 

 and still are being employed in the Wassermann reaction and 

 modifications thereof. 



For methods that make use of the natural human complement 

 and hsemolytic amboceptor, Hecht = used the corpuscles of the 

 sheep. Tschernogubow first (cited by himself) advocated the 

 use of sheep corpuscles. Later he ' recommended the corpuscles 

 of the guinea pig. Gurd * advocates the use of guinea pig cor- 

 puscles. The corpuscles of the hen and of other animals have 

 been suggested by other writers. 



In conducting the complement-fixation test using alien comple- 

 ment and hsemolytic amboceptor, the sheep hsemolytic system is 

 commonly employed with human serum. The sheep hsemolytic 

 system is not an ideal one to be used with human serum because 

 of the presence of natural antisheep hsemolytic amboceptor in 

 human serum that is readily reactivated by guinea pig comple- 

 ment. Bauer " used guinea pig complement, but utilized the 

 antisheep hsemolytic amboceptor normally present in human 

 serum. Noguchi "^ emphatically states that human corpuscles 

 and a corresponding amboceptor must be used in order to get 

 reliable results. 



The human hsemolytic system is an ideal one because isohsemo- 

 lysins practically never exist. The antihuman hsemolytic system 

 is not entirely without faults; animals rarely if ever produce a 

 highly potent antihuman hsemolytic serum, and frequently it is 

 difficult to obtain suitable corpuscles for conducting the tests. 



' Read before a meeting of the Manila Medical Society, February, 1916. 

 Received for publication October 21, 1915. 



'Wien. klin. Wochenschr. (1908), 21, (1909), 22, 265; (1909), 22, 338. 



'Deut. med. Wochenschr. (1909), 35, 668. 



Woum. Infect. Dis. (1911), 8, 427. 



"Deut. med. Wochenschr. (1909), 35, 432. 



'Journ. Exp. Med. (1909), 11, 392; Munch, med. Wochenschr. (1909), 

 56, 494. 



140085 3 33 



