Chemo-therapeutic trypanosome studies with special reference to the immunity following cure / by B.T. Terry.

  • Terry, B. T. (Benjamin Taylor), 1876-
Date:
1911
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Chemo-therapeutic trypanosome studies with special reference to the immunity following cure / by B.T. Terry. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.

    63/78 (page 59)
    In this table we note, (i) that surra of India and surra of Mauritius immunized against each other (mice i and 2, 5 and 6); (2) that mice cured of caderas, CD [I], and dourine (Nos. 8, 9, II, and 12) failed to become infected when tested with surra of India five and seven days after treatment; and (3) that infection, followed by spontaneous recovery, took place in the third, fourth, seventh, tenth, and thirteenth animals. From these observations two points are indicated, the first being both more obvious and certain than the second:— (1) That trypanosoiiies probably identical in origin, but pre- served apart for years, may, under certain circmnstances, immunize perfectly against each other. The failure to infect in these cases is all the more remarkable for the reason that in other tests under conditions which outwardly seemed the same, mice immunized to one of these strains have offered no resistance to infection with the other. (2) That certain forms of treatment may exert a profound in- fluence upon trypanosomes introduced five or more days after the last infection of medicament. In nearly every instance, the treat- ment which has been followed by this prolonged influence, has been a double one, consisting of an inoculation of acetyl-atoxyl (or a mixture containing this, namely, Mixture i) followed by an injection of Cl (or a mixture containing this, namely. Mixture i or Mixture 4). From what has been learned in other experiments of the action of this double treatment, and from its frequence in the above table (it was employed eight times), it seems not im- probable that the results in mice 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 may be explained, in whole or in part, by the prolonged action of the medicament. The reasons for not attributing the above results to the pres- ence of a non-specific immunity, are as follows: (i) No un- doubted case of a strong non-specific immunity has yet been re- ported (surra of India and surra of Mauritius being regarded as specifically identical). (2) The assumption of such an im- munity would not explain all of the cases. We note, for example, that four of the mice became infected (Nos. 3, 4, 10, and 13). If a strong, non-specific immunity had been present, infection