Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T05:52:20.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Principles of Immunity applied to Protective Inoculation against Diphtheria1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

A. T. Glenny
Affiliation:
Wellcome Physiological Research Laboratories, Beckenham, Kent.
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.

When diphtheria toxin is injected in a suitable form and in sufficient quantity into an animal, antitoxin will presently appear in the blood. If the injection be made into an animal that has not previously received a stimulus there is a latent period of about three weeks before any antitoxin can be detected. The amount present in the blood gradually increases, reaching a maximum about eight weeks after the injection, and then a gradual fall in level of antitoxic content is seen. If, however, the same amount of the same antigen be injected into a previously treated animal, antitoxin appears in the circulation at a far greater rate. The latent period is only three days, and the maximum antitoxin level is reached in about eight days. The maximum level reached is from 10 to 100 times that reached after an injection into a normal animal. The two types of response are illustrated in Charts 1 and 2 and also in Chart 3, which shows the antitoxic content of a horse after two separate injections of a toxin antitoxin mixture. There is a great contrast between the extent and rapidity of the antitoxic response on the two occasions.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1925

References

Cobbett, L. (1899). Lancet, II. 332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudley, S. F. (1922). Brit. Journ. Exper. Path. III. 204.Google Scholar
Von Groer, F. and Kassowitz, K. (1919). Zeitschr. f. Immunitätsforsch. Orig. XXVIII. 327.Google Scholar
Kliewe, H. and Westhues, M. (1925). München. med. Wochenschr. LXXII. 587.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, E. (1909). Zeitschr. f. Hygiene und Infektionskr. LXII. 491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minnett, F. C. (1922). Journ. Comp. Path. and Ther. XXXV. 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, R. A. (1923). Metropolitan Asylums Board, Infect. Diseases Section, p. 124.Google Scholar
O'Brien, R. A., Eagleton, A. J., Okell, C. C., and Baxter, M. (1923). Brit. Journ. Exper. Path. IV. 29.Google Scholar
Park, W. H. (1913). Amer. Journ. Obst. LXVIII. 1213.Google Scholar
Park, W. H. (1921). Arch. of Pediat. XXXVIII. 384.Google Scholar
Park, W. H.Schroder, M. C. and Zingher, A. (1923). Amer. Journ. of Public Health, XIII. 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sordelli, A. (1920). Revista del Instituto· Bacteriologico, II. No. 5.Google Scholar
Smith, TH. (1907). Journ. Med. Research, XVI. 359.Google Scholar
Watson, A. F. and Wallace, U. (1924). Journ. of Path. and Bact. XXVII. 288.Google Scholar
Zingher, A. (1921). Arch. of Pediat. XXXVIII. 336.Google Scholar
Zingher, A. (1922). Journ. Amer. Med. Assoc. LXXVIII. 1945.Google Scholar