Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-65tv2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-30T00:48:33.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Inactivation of complement by Mechanical Agitation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Hans Schmidt
Hans Schmidt
Affiliation:
(From the Bacteriological Department, Lister Institute, London.)
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.

Of the many methods employed to render a serum inactive, that by means of mechanical agitation has been the subject of several recent works, but the real nature of this phenomenon, as it occurs in shaken sera, is still unknown. The reason is the uncertainty regarding the nature of complement itself, and even the most satisfying explanation of the inactivation of complement by shaking would not probably throw much light on the nature of the complement. I give in the following a brief summary of the literature dealing with the inactivation of complement by mechanical agitation.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , October 1913 , pp. 291 - 313
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1913

References

REFERENCES

Courmont, and Dufour, (1912): (a) Journ. d. Physiol. et Pathol. gén. XIV. 116. Compt. rend. Soc. Biol. LXXII. 1014. (b) Journ. de Physiol. et Pathol. gén. XIV. 1143. Comp. rend. Soc. Biol. LXXII. 916, 1058.Google Scholar
Hara, K. (1913). Zeitschr. f. Immunitätsf. XVII. 209.Google Scholar
Husler, (1912). Zeitschr. f. Immunitätsf. XV. 157.Google Scholar
Jakoby, und Schuetze, (1909). Berl. klin. Woch. 2139.Google Scholar
Jakoby, und Schuetze, (1910). Zeitschr. f. Immunitätsf. IV. 730.Google Scholar
Kashiwabara, (1913). Zeitschr. f. Immunitätsf. XVII. 21.Google Scholar
Kostrzewski, (1911). Centralbl. f. Bact. Abt. I. Orig. LVIII. 262.Google Scholar
Landsteiner, and Stankovic, (1906). Centralbl. f. Bact. XLI. 108.Google Scholar
Ledingham, and Dean, (1912). This Journal, XII. 152.Google Scholar
Mutermilch, (1911). Compt. rend. Soc. Biol. LXX. 577.Google Scholar
Noguchi, and Bronfenbrenner, (1911). Journ. Exper. Med. XIII. 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsden, W. (1894). Arch. f. Anat. u. Physiol. Abt. f. Physiol. 517.Google Scholar
Ramsden, W. (1903). Proc. Roy. Soc. LXXII. 156.Google Scholar
Ramsden, W. (1904). Zeitschr. f. physikal. Chem. XLVII. 336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritz, (1912). Zeitschr. f. Immunitätsf. XV. 145.Google Scholar
Sachs, (1913). Handbuch der pathogenen Microorganismen, II. 880.Google Scholar
Sachs, und Altmann, Handbuch der Technik und Methodik der Immunitätsforschung, Bd. II. 969.Google Scholar
Sachs, und Altmann, (1908). Berl. Klin. Woch. 522.Google Scholar
Schmidt, H. (1913). This Journal, p. 314.Google Scholar
Schmidt, P. (1911). Zeitschr. f. Hyg. LXIX. 513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, P. (1912). Zeitschr. f. Chem. u. Industr. d. Kolliode, X. 3, XI. 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt-Nielsen, (1909). Zeitschr. f. physiol. Chem. LX. 426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaklee, and Meltzer, (1909). Americ. Journ. Physiol. XXV. 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaklee, and Meltzer, (1908–1909). Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol. and Med. VI. 103.Google Scholar
Shaklee, and Meltzer, (1909). Centralblatt f. Physiol. XXIII. H. 1.Google Scholar
Simnitzki, (1903). Münch. med. Woch. Nro. 50.Google Scholar
Stuehmer, (1910). Centralbl. f. inn. Med. Nro. 2.Google Scholar
Zeisler, (1909). Berl. klin. Woch. Nro. 52.Google Scholar