Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T01:06:03.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Differentiation of Proteins of Closely Related Species by the Precipitin Reaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

D. A. Welsh  and
H. G. Chapman
D. A. Welsh
Affiliation:
(From the Laboratories of Physiology and of Pathology in the University of Sydney.)
H. G. Chapman
Affiliation:
(From the Laboratories of Physiology and of Pathology in the University of Sydney.)
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.

The ultimate problem underlying many applications of the precipitin test, whether it be the determination of biological relationships, the identification of blood stains and other animal traces, or the detection of adulteration in food, is the recognition of the homologous protein (antigen) and its separation from closely allied heterologous proteins. Recognising that the antiserum is the main source of the precipitate in a precipitin reaction and having regard to the exact quantitative relations of antiserum, antigen and precipitate we have been able to arrange methods for the differentiation of proteins of closely related species and, we believe, to render more accurate the diagnosis of the source of individual proteins. To take a crucial instance, by means of an antiserum prepared with hen egg-white we have been able clearly to distinguish solutions of hen egg-white from all other avian egg-whites tested, including those of the duck, quail, partridge, pheasant and ostrich. So far as we know, Nuttall and Graham Smith alone have previously been successful in differentiating homologous and heterologous avian egg-albumens, and their methods appear to be more cumbersome than ours. Incidentally we have found that our results are not only consistent inter se but consistent also with the interpretation of the precipitin reaction which our previous observations had led us to adopt.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , August 1910 , pp. 177 - 184
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1910

References

REFERENCES

(1)Myers, (1900). Lancet, ii., 98, and Centralbl. f. Bakt., xxviii., 237.Google Scholar
(2)Uhlenhuth, (1900). Deutsche med. Wochenschr., XXVI., 734.Google Scholar
(3)Uhlenhuth, (1901). Deutsche med. Wochenschr., XXVI., 260.Google Scholar
(4)Gengou, (1902). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, XVI., 734.Google Scholar
(5)Nuttall, (1901). Journ. of Trop. Med., IV., 408.Google Scholar
(6)Nuttall, (1902). Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc., xi., 334. (Quoted by Nuttall, 1904, p. 205.)Google Scholar
(7)Nuttall, (1902). Brit. Med. Jour., I., 825.Google Scholar
(8)Nuttall, (1904). Blood Immunity and Relationship. Cambridge, pp. 205–7.Google Scholar
(9)Nuttall, and Graham, Smith (1904). Blood Immunity and Relationship. Cambridge, pp. 340–7.Google Scholar
(10)Welsh, and Chapman, (i. 1906). Austral. Med. Gazette, XXV., 7.Google Scholar
(11)Ewing, (1903). Proc. New York Path. Soc., N.S., III., 14. (Quoted by Nuttall, 1904, pp. 142–3.)Google Scholar
(12)Welsh, and Chapman, (1906). Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B, Vol. 78, p. 297.Google Scholar
(13)Welsh, and Chapman, (1908). Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B, Vol. 80, p. 161.Google Scholar
(14)Welsh, and Chapman, (1909). Trans. Austral. Med. Congress, 8th Session, II., 269 (Melbourne).Google Scholar
(15)Chapman, (1910). Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B, Vol. 82, p. 398.Google Scholar
(16)Welsh, and Chapman, (1907). Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B, Vol. 79, p. 465, and (1909). Journ. of Path. and Bact., XIII., 206.Google Scholar