Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T23:41:16.639Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The combination of antitoxin with toxin and toxoid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Mollie Barr ,
A. T. Glenny  and
Muriel F. Stevens
Mollie Barr
Affiliation:
The Wellcome Research Laboratories(Biological Division), Beckenham, Kent
A. T. Glenny
Affiliation:
The Wellcome Research Laboratories(Biological Division), Beckenham, Kent
Muriel F. Stevens
Affiliation:
The Wellcome Research Laboratories(Biological Division), 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.

1. Non-avid tetanus antitoxin appears to have a higher titre in relation to an avid standard if titrations are made against test toxins with a high toxoid content. The least avid serum tested appeared to be 2·87 times as potent when titrations were made against a toxin grown for 35 days than when a 2-day growth was used. Using the same test doses avid sera did not show this discrepancy.

2. A mixture of short-growth toxin and formol toxoid reacted similarly to the long-growth toxin.

3. Some non-avid tetanus antitoxic sera showed evidence of difference in goodness of fit with two test toxins; one serum was 2·49 times the titre of another when tested against one toxin and only 1·37 times when tested against another toxin.

4. Diphtheria toxoid has less affinity than toxin for antitoxin; this difference is greater with formol toxoids of poor immunizing efficiency; the difference is further accentuated if non-avid anti-toxin is used.

5. The Danysz effect may be very small if non-avid antitoxin is used.

6. In the presence of excess antitoxin, toxin or formol toxoid can combine with 3, 4 or more times its equivalent as judged by in vivo titrations for free antitoxin.

7. The serum ratio, i.e. in vivo titre/in vitro titre of high or low ratio antitoxin in multiple combinations is nearer unity than that of the original antitoxin.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , September 1954 , pp. 379 - 396
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1954

References

REFERENCES

Barr, M. (1949). The role of test toxins and the need for standards in the determination of avidity of antitoxins. J. Path. Bact. 61, 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, M. (1951). The formation of abnormal diphtheria antitoxin in the early stages of immunisation. J. Path. Bact. 63, 557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barr, M. & Glenny, A. T. (1931 a). The preparation of fractions of different antitoxic quality from the same serum. J. Path. Bact. 34, 539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, M. & Glenny, A. T. (1931 b). Further observations on qualitative differences in anti-toxin fractions prepared from the same sample of plasma. Brit. J. exp. Path. 12, 337.Google Scholar
Barr, M. & Glenny, A. T. (1938). Abnormal flocculation reactions with diphtheria toxoid. J. Path. Bact. 47, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, M. & Glenny, A. T. (1945). Some practical applications of immunological principles. J. Hyg., Camb., 44, 135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barr, M. & Glenny, A. T. (1949). Qualitative differences among toxins and toxoids. J. Hyg., Camb., 47, 107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corn, M. & Pappenheimer, A. M. Jr. (1949). A quantitative study of the diphtheria toxin-antitoxin reaction in the sera of various species including man. J. Immunol. 63, 291.Google Scholar
Glenny, A. T. (1913). A modification of diphtheria antitoxin. J. Hyg., Camb., 13, 63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glenny, A. T. (1925). The principles of immunity applied to protective inoculation against diphtheria. J. Hyg., Camb., 24, 301.Google ScholarPubMed
Glenny, A. T. (1931). Active immunization with toxin. M.R.C., System of Bacteriology in Relation to Medicine, 4, 106. London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Glenny, A. T. (1936). Some anomalies in the titration of antigens and antibodies. Second International Congress for Microbiology, p. 209.Google Scholar
Glenny, A. T. & Barr, M. (1932). The “dilution ratio” of diphtheria antitoxin as a measure of avidity. J. Path. Bact. 35, 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenny, A. T., Pope, C. G., Waddington, H. & Wallace, U. (1925). Immunological Notes XVI—A method of producing tetanus antitoxic serum of high potency. J. Path. Bact. 28, 481.Google Scholar
Glenny, A. T. & Walpole, G. S. (1915). Detection and concentration of antigens by pressure dialysis etc., with special reference to diphtheria and tetanus toxins. Biochem. J. 9, 298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Healey, M. & Pinfield, S. (1935). An in vitro investigation of the reaction between diphtheria toxin and antitoxin. Brit. J. exp. Path. 16, 535.Google Scholar
Kuhns, W. J. & Pappenheimer, A. M. Jr (1952). Immunological studies of antitoxin produced in normal and allergic individuals hyperimmunized with diphtheria toxoid. II A comparison between the immunological properties of precipitating and non-precipitating (skin sensitizing) antibodies. J. exp. Med. 95, 375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrie, G. F. (1942–1944). Observations on the variable interactions of tetanus toxins and antitoxins. Bull. Hlth Org. L.o.N. 10, 113.Google Scholar