Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g78kv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T23:32:47.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Non-Specific Stimulation of Agglutinins. With Especial Reference to the Enteric Fevers and Typhus Fever

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

A. Felix
A. Felix
Affiliation:
(From the Hadassah Medical Organisation, Bacteriological Laboratory, Rothschild Hospital, Jerusalem.)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

(1) The review of the published data furnishes additional evidence in support of the view that no technique whatsoever, Dreyer's technique included, based on the quantitative method of the agglutination reaction hitherto used, is capable of affording a differentiation between inoculation and infection agglutinins.

(2) These techniques are concerned always exclusively in the demonstration of the labilotropic H agglutinins of B. typhosus and B. paratyphosus A. and B. and it is the behaviour of these agglutinins that is the responsible factor in producing the phenomena.

(3) In various febrile conditions in inoculated individuals these H agglutinins undergo a re-stimulation resulting in a curve of agglutination which is indistinguishable from that due to specific stimulation. The re-stimulation of the labilotropic inoculation agglutinins is of the same nonspecific character (i.e. heterologous) in the course of enteric infections as in the course of other febrile diseases.

(4) The observation of this non-specific re-stimulation is independent of the technique used; living bacilli and suspensions preserved with phenol or formalin (Dreyer's technique included) do not in this respect behave differently.

(5) The proposed qualitative method for the Widal test depends, in inoculated individuals, exclusively upon the behaviour of the stabilotropic O agglutinins. In their presence it is capable of affording the certain diagnosis of an enteric infection; in their absence the negative result of the test is not conclusive; if T.A.B. vaccine has been used it is only possible to diagnose enteric group without being able to differentiate typhoid from paratyphoid A. or B.; if T. vaccine has been used then A. or B. infection can be differentiated but not T.

(1) The conclusions previously arrived at by means of the qualitative method of the Widal test were fully confirmed. By eliminating the labilotropic H agglutinins from any consideration—in the case of previously sensibilised individuals—agglutination due to the specific stimulation in active enteric infection can be distinguished definitely from that due to the nonspecific re-stimulation by various febrile diseases.

(2) Normal and immune O agglutinins for B. typhosus and B. paratyphosus A. and B., as well as those for B. proteus X 19, are not liable to non-specific stimulation in the course of various febrile diseases.

(3) One more of the supposed differences in nature between the Widal test and the Weil-Felix test is thereby eliminated.

(4) The difference in the response to non-specific stimulation shown to exist in stabilotropic and labilotropic agglutination seems more likely to be one of degree than one in nature and needs further investigation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , February 1929 , pp. 418 - 448
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1929

References

REFERENCES

American Red Cross Research Committee (1918). Report on Trench Fever. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Anders, (1919). Zeitschr. f. Hyg. 88, 183.Google Scholar
Arkwright, J. A. (1921). J. Path. and Bact. 24, 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnstein, A. (1917). Wien. klin. Wochenschr. 30, 409.Google Scholar
Berger, W. (1917). Med. Klin. 884.Google Scholar
Braun, H. (1918). München. med. Wochenschr. 65, 1199.Google Scholar
Burnet, F. (1924). Brit. J. Exper. Path. 5, 251.Google Scholar
Cancik, J. (1916). Wien. klin. Wochenschr. 29, 1552.Google Scholar
Cole, R. J. (1904). Zeitschr. f. Hyg. 46, 371.Google Scholar
Committee upon Pathological Methods (1920). Med. Res. Committee, Spec. Rep. Ser. No. 51. London.Google Scholar
Conradi, H. and Bieling, R. (1916). Deutsche med. Wochenschr. 42, 1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courmont, P. (1897). Revue de Méd. 745.Google Scholar
Courmont, P. (1900). Revue de Méd. 318.Google Scholar
Curschmann, H. (1904). In Nothnagel, Spec. Pathol. u. Therapie, 3rd ed. 3, 1.Google Scholar
Dawson, G. D. (1915). Brit. Med. J. ii, 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieudonné, A. (1906). Med. Klin. 575.Google Scholar
Doerr, R. and Pick, R. (1919). Zeitschr. f. Hyg. 89, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreyer, G. (1906). Hasp. Tid. No. 19.Google Scholar
Dreyer, G. (1909). J. Path. and Bact. 13, 331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreyer, G. (1915). Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. 9, Med. Sect. p. 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreyer, G. and Ainley Walker, E. W. (1909). J. Pathol. and Bact. 14, 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreyer, G. and Ainley Walker, E. W. (1916). Lancet, ii, 419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreyer, G., Ainley Walker, E. W. and Gibson, A. G. (1915). Lancet, i, 324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreyer, G. and Inman, A. C. (1917). Lancet, i, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dünner, L. (1915, 1). Berlin. klin. Wochenschr. 59.Google Scholar
Dünner, L. (1915, 2). Berlin. klin. Wochenschr. 683.Google Scholar
Falk, M. and Siebenrock, L. (1916). Feldaerztl. Blätter der K. u. K. 2. Armee, No. 18.Google Scholar
Felix, A. (1916). Wien. klin. Wochenschr. 29, 873.Google Scholar
Felix, A. (1917, 1). Zeitschr. f. Immunitätsf. 26, 602.Google Scholar
Felix, A. (1917, 2). München. med. Wochenschr. 64, 1259.Google Scholar
Felix, A. (1924, 1). Zeitschr. f. Immunitätsf. 29, 24.Google Scholar
Felix, A. (1924, 2). J. Immunol. 9, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, A. and Olitzki, L. (1926). J. Immunol. 11, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, A. and Olitzki, L. (1928). J. of Hyg. 28, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleckseder, R. (1916). Wien. klin. Wochenschr. 29, 637.Google Scholar
Garrow, R. P. (1916). Lancet, ii, 1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrow, R. P. (1917). Lancet, ii, 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrow, R. P. (1920). Lancet, ii, 886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grattan, H. W. and Harvey, D. (1911). J. Roy. Army Med. Corps, 16, 9.Google Scholar
Grattan, H. W. and Wood, J. L. (1911). J. Roy. Army Med. Corps, 17, 143.Google Scholar
Hall Walker, J. (1917). Lancet, ii, 534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall Walker, J., Hiles, I. L. and Nicholls, F. (1916). J. Roy. Army Med. Corps, 27, 259Google Scholar
Hirschbruch, A. (1915). Deutsche med. Wochenschr. 61, 525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iversen, J. G. (1905). Zeitschr. f. Hyg. 49, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaggi, M. (1923). Zeitschr. f. Immunitätsf. 36, 482.Google Scholar
Klemperer, F., Oettinger, W. and Rosenthal, F. (1915). Therapie d. Gegenwart, 56, 161.Google Scholar
Kolle, W. and Hetsch, H. (1922). Experimentelle Bakteriologie, 6th ed.Berlin and Wien.Google Scholar
Kraus, R. and De LA, Barrera J.M., (1922). Zeitschr. f. Immunitätsf. 34, 1.Google Scholar
Ledingham, J. C. G. (1920). Journ. Roy. Army Med. Corps, 34, 306.Google Scholar
Ledingham, J. C. G. (1921). Lancet, i, 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SirLeishman, William (1924). Official Medical History of the War. Pathology Volume p. 211.Google Scholar
Liess, W. (1918). München. med. Wochenschr. 65, 1045.Google Scholar
Martin, C. J. and Upjohn, W. G. D. (1916). Brit. Med. J. ii, 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meinicke, E. (1916). Deutsche med. Wochenschr. 62, 1214.Google Scholar
Mühlens, P. and Stojanoff, D. (1917). Arch. f. Schiffs- u. Tropenhyg. 21, 213.Google Scholar
Munk, F. (1916). Zeitschr. f. klin. Med. 82, 415.Google Scholar
Obermeier, F. and Pick, E. P. (1904). Wien. klin. Wochenschr. 265.Google Scholar
O'farrell, T. T. (1916). Lancet, ii, 970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, H. M. (1918). Lancet, i, 593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenstein, J. and Silbiger, S. (1917). München. med. Wochenschr. 64, 758.Google Scholar
Rostoski, (1905). Deutsche med. Wochenschr. 51, 691.Google Scholar
Rotky, H. (1921). Centralbl. f. Bakt. 87, 16.Google Scholar
Safford, A. H. (1913). J. Roy. Army Med. Corps, 20, 567.Google Scholar
Salomonson, C. J. and Madsen, T. (1898). C. R. Acad. des Sci. 126, 1229.Google Scholar
Schiff, F. (1922). Zeitschr. f. Immunitätsf. 33, 511.Google Scholar
Schiff, F. (1924). In Oppenheimer's Handbuch der Biochemie, 2nd ed. 3, 262. Jena.Google Scholar
Schütze, H. (1922). J. Hyg. 20, 330.Google Scholar
Selffert, G. (1915). München. med. Wochenschr. 62, 1753.Google Scholar
Seyfarth, C. (1918). Med. Klin. 1046.Google Scholar
Starkenstein, E. and Zitterbart, R. (1918). Wien. klin. Wochenschr. 31, 1317.Google Scholar
Stursberg, and Klose, (1915). München. med. Wochenschr. 62, 380.Google Scholar
Topley, W. W. C., Platts, S.G. and Imbie, C.G. (1920). Med. Res. Council, Spec. Rep Ser. No. 48. London.Google Scholar
Tsukahara, J. (1921). Zeitschr. f. Immunitätsf. 32, 410.Google Scholar
Walker Ainley, E. W. (1916). Lancet, ii, 896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weigl, R. (1924). Med. Klin. 1046.Google Scholar
Weil, E. and Felix, A. (1916). Wien. klin. Wochenschr. 29, 974.Google Scholar
Weil, E. and Felix, A. (1916, 2). Wien. klin. Wochenschr. 29, 33.Google Scholar
Weil, E. and Felix, A. (1917). Wien. klin. Wochenschr. 30, 1509.Google Scholar
Weil, E. and Felix, A. (1920). Zeitschr. f. Immunitätsf. 29, 24.Google Scholar
Weil, E. and Felix, A. (1921). Zeitschr. f. Immunitätsf. 31, 457.Google Scholar
White, P. B. (1925). Med. Res. Council, Spec. Rep. Ser. No. 91. London.Google Scholar
White, P. B. (1927). J. Path. and Bact. 30, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widal, F. and Sicard, A. (1897). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 11, 353.Google Scholar
Wolff, G. (1922). Weichardt's Ergebnisse, 5, 532.Google Scholar
Zlocisti, TH. (1917). Zeitschr. f. klin. Med. 85, 197.Google Scholar
Zlocisti, TH. (1918). Arch. f. Schiffs- u. Tropenhyg. 22, Beiheft 3.Google Scholar