Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T00:40:24.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Immune and allergic reactions to diphtheria toxin and toxoid in guinea-pigs*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

D. A. Long
D. A. Long
Affiliation:
From the Department of Microbiology, The School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, PA
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.

Guinea-pigs immunized with alum-precipitated diphtheria toxoid (APT) become hypersensitive to diphtheria toxin and toxid. This hypersensitivity is probably due to a mixture of immediate (Arthus-type) reactions and delayed (tuberculin-type) reactions, the former increasing as the level of circulating precipitating antitoxin rose and tending to mask the latter. In a hyperimmune guinea-pig the residual damage following the intradermal injection of toxin is due, at least in part, to hypersensitivity to toxin; toxicity probably contributes relatively little to the extent of the lesion in animals with a high titre of antitoxin.

The technical difficulties of proving the presence of a delayed allergic reaction in animals with an early allergic reaction are discussed.

I am grateful to Dr C. G. Pope, who has been closely associated with this work, not only for providing highly purified materials, but also for his advice.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , June 1959 , pp. 216 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

References

REFERENCES

Ben-Efraim, S. & Long, D. A. (1957). Lancet, ii, 1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyden, S. V. & Sorkin, E. (1955). J. Immunol. 75, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerwing, Julia, Long, D. A. & Mussett, Marjorie V. (1957). Bull. World Hlth Org. 17, 537.Google Scholar
Humphrey, J. H., Long, D. A. & Perry, W. L. M. (1957). Methods of Biochemical Analysis, chap. 5, p. 89. New York: International Science Publ. Inc.Google Scholar
Long, D. A. (1950). Brit. J. exp. Path. 31, 183.Google Scholar
Long, D. A. (1957). Int. Arch. Allergy, Basel, 10, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, D. A. & Miles, A. A. (1950). Lancet, i, 492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, D. A., Miles, A. A. & Perry, W. L. M. (1954). Bull. World Hlth Org. 10, 989.Google Scholar
Ovary, Z. (1958). Progr. Allergy, 5, 459.Google Scholar
Pope, C. G. (1957). Brit. J. exp. Path. 38, 207.Google Scholar
Pope, C. G. & Stevens, Muriel F. (1958). Brit. J. exp. Path. 39, 150.Google Scholar
Rich, A. R. (1950). The Pathogenesis of Tuberculosis. Oxford.Google Scholar
Römer, P. H. & Sames, Th. (1909). ImmunForsch. 3, 244.Google Scholar
Salvin, S. B. (1958). J. exp. Med. 107, 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suter, E. (1952). J. exp. Med. 96, 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhr, J. W., Salvin, S. B. & Pappenheimer, A. M. (1957). J. exp. Med. 105, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar