Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:42:01.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Effects of Dosage in Typhoid Vaccination of Rabbits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

J. Henderson Smith
Affiliation:
Assistant Bacteriologist, Lister Institute
Ralph St John Brooks
Affiliation:
British Medical Association Research Scholar
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.

Following the subcutaneous injection of typhoid vaccine into rabbits the average antibody response was estimated from day to day, and found to vary for agglutination, bactericidal action, phagocytosis (including tropins), “precipitation” and probably for complement-fixation according to the dose of vaccine.

As estimated by the maximal value reached by the serum the response increases with increasing dose in nearly all cases. This increase becomes relatively less and less as the dose increases, and its progress suggests that with a sufficiently large dose a limiting-value might be reached, which if not actually a true limit would be practically one.

The observed relationship between dose and effect is such as to suggest that the combination of antigen and reacting-cell takes place in accordance with the rules governing adsorption processes; but this does not hold for the response in bactericidal power.

With increasing vaccine-dose the date at which the maximal value is reached gets later for the various antibodies, with again exception of the bactericidal power.

The precipitation observed differs from the usual precipitation reaction and is perhaps really an agglutination-phenomenon.

Phagocytosis was observed in three ways, and the bearing of the results on the mechanism of the action of the antibody concerned is considered; and the relationship between the bactericidal and other antibodies is also discussed.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1912

References

Ascher, (1901). Centralbl. für Bakteriologie, Orig. XXIX, p. 125.Google Scholar
Cole, (1904). Zeitschr. für Hygiene, XLVI, p. 371.Google Scholar
Cowie, and Chapin, (1907). Journ. Medical Research, XVII pp. 57, 95, 213.Google Scholar
Dean, G. (1907). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, LXXIX, p. 399; British Medical Journ. 1907, Nov. 16.Google Scholar
Dean, H. R. (1911). Proc. Roy. Soc. of Medicine, Vol. V, Sect. Pathology, p. 62.Google Scholar
Friedberger, (1902). Festschrift v. von Leyden, II cit. ap. Kolle und Wassermann, IV, p. 512.Google Scholar
Klien, (1907). Johns Hopkins Hosp. Bulletin, XVIII, p. 245.Google Scholar
Leishman, , Harrison, , Grattan, and Archibald, (1908). Journ. Roy. Army Medical Corps, X, p. 586Google Scholar
Harrison, , (1908). Journ. Roy. Army Medical Corps, VIII p. 480Google Scholar
Leishman, , Harrison, , Grattan, , Webb, and Kennedy, , (1908). Journ. Roy. Army Medical Corps, XI, p. 327.Google Scholar
Stäubli, (1904). Centralbl. für Bakteriologie, Orig. XXXVI, p. 297.Google Scholar
Wright, (1909). Studies in Immunisation, London, p. 337.Google Scholar