The effect of varying tonicity on the anaphylactic and other reactions of plain muscle / by H.H. Dale.

  • Dale, Henry Hallett, 1875-1968.
Date:
[1913]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: The effect of varying tonicity on the anaphylactic and other reactions of plain muscle / by H.H. Dale. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    3/24
    THE EFFECT OF VAM]^0><ICITY ON THE ANA- PHYLACTIC Af^-trlllER REACTIONS OF PLAIN MUSCLE Reprinted from The Journal o V Therapeutics H. H. DALE From the Wellcome Physiological Research Laboratories, Herne Hill, London, S. E. Received for publication May 19, 1913 It was shown by Friedberger and Hartoch (1), that a prelimi- nary injection of saturated sodium chloride solution enabled sen- sitised guinea-pigs to survive a reinjection of the sensitising antigen, which was sufficiently large to be uniformly fatal to identically sensitised control animals. Friedberger and Langer (2) have shown that sodium chloride given by the mouth in sufficient quantity has a similar protective effect. Friedberger and Hartoch attributed the effect of the salt to the well-known inhibiting action of hypertonic solutions on the fixation of com- plement, as studied in vitro. They found, indeed, that the miti- gation of the symptoms following reinjection was attended by a diminution in the loss of complement, which accompanies a normal anaphylactic reaction. Since, according to Friedberger’s theory, the complement plays an essential part in the production of anaphylatoxin, any influence which inhibited complement- fixation would, on this theory, prevent the appearance of anaphy- lactic symptoms. Doubt has been cast on this explanation from more than one quarter.. Bomstein (3) pointed out that intra- venous injection of salt in such quantities caused a considerable dilution of the blood and increase of its volume, by the entry of water from the tissues. He regarded this as an important factor in the protective action. Ritz (4) showed that a prelimi- nary salt injection protected against the action of “anaphyla- toxin prepared in vitro, which, on Friedberger and Hartoch’s view, should not be affected. The demonstration of the anaphy-