Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T09:59:30.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Danysz Effect with reference to the Toxin-Antitoxin Reaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

J. A. Craw
J. A. Craw
Affiliation:
Grocers' Company Research Scholar, Hon. Demonstrator in Physiology, The London Hospital Medical College.
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. It is inadmissible to study the “Danysz Effect” on tetanolysin owing to its rapid deterioration.

2. The so-called “equivalents” of toxin and antitoxin deduced by Arrhenius and Madsen are arbitrary.

3. No evidence has yet been advanced that the “Danysz Effect” has a limiting value when the time of contact of the first fraction of toxin with the antitoxin is prolonged.

4. If a limiting value of the “Danysz Effect” exist that calculated by Arrhenius is probably erroneous.

5. The monomolecular formula used by Arrhenius is merely an interpolation.

6. The “Danysz Effect” is much better represented by a bimolecular formula.

7. No confirmation of the “equivalents” of toxin and antitoxin has as yet been obtained from the “Effect.”

8. Expediency appears to be the only justification for assuming that the “Effect” is due to either a modified antitoxin or to a modified toxin, viz. epitoxonoid.

9. All the phenomena of the “Effect” hitherto advanced have their counterpart in the staining of paper, porcelain, etc., by anilin dyes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , July 1907 , pp. 501 - 511
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1907

References

REFERENCES

Arrhenius, (1907), Immunochemie, Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft m. b. H.Google Scholar
Arrhenius, and Madsen, (1902), Festskrift ved Invielsen af Statens Seruminstitut, III. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Bayliss, (1906), Bio-Chemical Journal, vol. I. p. 175.Google Scholar
Biltz, (1904), Göttinger Nachrichten, math.-phys. Kl., No. 1.Google Scholar
Biltz, Zeitschr. f. physikal. Chemie, vol. XLVIII. p. 615.Google Scholar
Bordet, (1903), Ann. de l'inst. Pasteur, vol. XVII. p. 161.Google Scholar
Craw, (1905, I.), Journ. of Hygiene, vol. V. p. 115.Google Scholar
Craw, (1905, III.), Roy. Soc. Proc., B. vol. LXXVI. p. 188.Google Scholar
Craw, Zeitschr. f. physikal. Chemie, vol. LII. p. 569.Google Scholar
Craw, (1906), Roy. Soc. Proc., B. vol. LXXVI. p. 311.Google Scholar
Danysz, (1902), Ann. de l'Inst. Pasteur, vol. XVI. p. 331.Google Scholar
Dungern, v. (1904), Deutsche med. Wochenschr., vol. XXX. pp. 275, 310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, (1897), Fortschr. d. Medicin, vol. XV. p. 41.Google Scholar
Freundlich, (1906), Ueber die Adsorption in Lösungen, Habilitationsschrift, Repr. Leipzig: Engelmann.Google Scholar
Landsteiner, (1903), München. med. Wochenschr., vol. L. p. 764.Google Scholar
Madsen, (1899), Zeitschr. f. Hygiene, p. 227.Google Scholar
Madsen, and Arrhenius, (1906), Meddelh. fråm Vet.-Akads. Nobelinstitut, vol. I. No. 3.Google Scholar
Madsen, and Arrhenius, Communic. de l'institut sérothérapique de l'état Danois, Extraits, vol. I.Google Scholar
Madsen, and Arrhenius, (1907), Centralbl. f. Bakteriol., Ref. vol. XXXIX. p. 189.Google Scholar
Martin, C. J. (1896), Journ. of Physiol. vol. XX. p. 364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nernst, (1904), Zeitschr. f. Electrochemie, vol. X. p. 377.Google Scholar
Sachs, (1904), Berlin. klin. Wochenschr., No. 16.Google Scholar
Sachs, Centralbl. f. Bakteriol., vol. XXXVII. No. 2.Google Scholar