Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:02:47.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of the spirochaete in the Wassermann reaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

A. Beck
A. Beck
Affiliation:
From the Central Pathological Laboratory, L.C.C. Mental Hospitals, and the Devonport Laboratory, Seamen's Hospital
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.

1. The examination of 1100 sera by both the Wassermann reaction and the complement-fixation test with spirochaetes revealed a superior sensitivity of the latter reaction and practically equal specificity of the two tests.

2. Syphilitic serum contains two different antibodies: one reacting with the lipoid antigen of the Wassermann reaction, the other with a specific antigen in the spirochaete.

3. The spirochaetal antibody of syphilitic serum has a complex serological structure, corresponding to spirochaete strains of different antigenic make-up.

4. The existence of this antibody and its specific absorption by the homologous antigen can also be demonstrated by agglutination.

5. The difference between agglutinin titres found in normal and syphilitic sera is not pronounced enough to render this method satisfactory for the practical diagnosis of syphilis.

6. The spirochaete contains, apart from its specific antigen, the ubiquitous lipoid substance representing the Wassermann antigen.

7. A fraction was obtained from spirochaetes by Raistrick and Topley's method which in complement-fixation and precipitation tests reacted actively with spirochaete antisera from rabbits, but which so far failed to react with syphilitic sera.

This work was carried out with the aid of a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. I wish to thank Prof. Golla, Director of the Central Pathological Laboratory, L.C.C. Mental Hospitals, who rendered this work possible, and Dr Arthur Davies, Director of the Devonport Laboratory, for the hospitality afforded me at his laboratory and for the patients’ sera used in this work. I am indebted to Prof. R. T. Hewlett for his revision of the manuscript, to Prof. Raistrick for advice in chemical matters, and to Dr Amies, of the Lister Institute, for his help with the Sharples centrifuge.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , May 1939 , pp. 298 - 310
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1939

References

REFERENCES

D'Alessandro, G. & Sofia, F. (1934–1935). Z. Immunforsch. 84, 237.Google Scholar
Boivin, A. & Mesrobeanu, L. (1935). Rev. Immunol. 1, 553.Google Scholar
Caldwell, W. A. (1930). Brit. J. exp. Path. 11, 1.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. & Günsberger, O. D. (1935). Z. Immunforsch. 85, 233.Google Scholar
Gaethgens, W. (1929). Z. Immunforsch. 63, 398.Google Scholar
Gaethgens, W. (1932). Z. Immunforsch. 73, 527.Google Scholar
Gaethgens, W. (1937–1938). Arch. Derm. Syph., Wien, 176, 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgi, F., Prausnitz, C. & Fischer, O. E. (1929). Klin. Wschr. 8, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewlett, R. T. (1932). A Manual of Bacteriology, 9th ed. p. 513.Google Scholar
Hoeltzer, R. R. & Popoff, W. J. (1928). Z. Immunforsch. 59, 501.Google Scholar
Hoeltzer, R. R. & Ssuschkowa, E. G. (1930). Z. Immunforsch. 68, 81.Google Scholar
Jahnel, F. (1934). Klin. Wschr. 13, 550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kast, C. C. & Kolmer, J. A. (1929). Amer. J. Syphil. 13, 419.Google Scholar
Kissmeyer, A. (1915). Dtsch. med. Wschr. 41, 306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kligler, I. K., Guggenheim, K. & Warburg, F. M. (1938). J. Path. Bact. 46, 619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klopstock, F. (1926). Dtsch. med. Wschr. 52, 226, 1460.Google Scholar
Kolle, W. (1926). Dtsch. med. Wschr. 52, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolmer, J. A., Broadwell, St. & Matsunami, T. (1916). J. exp. Med. 24, 333.Google Scholar
Króo, H. & Schultze, F. O. (1928). Klin. Wschr. 7, 246.Google Scholar
Króo, H., Schultze, F. O. & Zander, I. (1929). Klin. Wschr. 8, 783.Google Scholar
Mackie, T. J. & Watson, F. H. (1926). J. Hyg., Camb., 25, 176.Google Scholar
Plaut, F. (1934). Z. Immunforsch. 81, 479.Google Scholar
Plaut, F. & Kassowitz, H. (1930). Klin. Wschr. 9, 1396.Google Scholar
Raistrick, H. & Topley, W. W. C. (1934). Brit. J. exp. Path. 15, 113.Google Scholar
Scheff, G. (1935). Zbl. Bakt. I. Orig. 134, 35.Google Scholar
Tribondeau, L. (1913). C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 156, 340.Google Scholar
Zinsser, H., Hopkins, J. G. & McBurney, M. (1916). J. exp. Med. 24, 561.Google Scholar