The principles of immunity applied to protective innoculation against diphtheria / by A.T. Glenny.

  • Glenny, A. T.
Date:
[1925?]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: The principles of immunity applied to protective innoculation against diphtheria / by A.T. Glenny. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    3/24
    [From THE JOUKNAL OF HYGIENE, Vol, XXIV, Nos. 3 and 4, 17 December, 1925.] [All Rights reserved] THE PRINCIPLES OF IMMUNITY APPLIED TO PRO¬ TECTIVE INOCULATION AGAINST DIPHTHERIA1. By A. T. GLENNY. Wellcome Physiological Research Laboratories, Beckenham, Kent. (With 7 Charts.) 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 anti¬ toxic 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. We distinguish between the two effects by saying that the injection of an antigen into a non-immune animal acts as a primary stimulus; the injection into an immune animal acts as a secondary stimulus. Thus we say that an immune animal is one that has been so altered by a previous stimulus that it is able to respond to a fresh stimulus more rapidly and to a greater extent than a non-immune animal can. These two types of antigenic response are of fundamental importance. The differences in rate of response by non-immune and immune animals injected with diphtheria toxin have been established by Dr Sudmersen and myself in a number of different animals, guinea-pigs, rabbits, sheep, goats, cows, horses and men. With another colleague, Miss Allen, I was able some years ago to establish the same difference in response to four other toxins, those of tetanus and of three gas gangrene organisms, B. welchii, vibrion septique and B. oedematiens. Even the formation of precipitin to foreign protein is more rapid and extensive in a sensitive than in an untreated animal. This simple principle of increased power to respond has been established by us in many animals for these five different toxins, and results of other 1 A Lecture given at St Mary’s Hospital, 14th May, 1925.