Arsphenamine Hypersensitiveness in Guinea-Pigs

Sulzberger, Marion B.

doi:10.1001/archderm.1930.01440170065008

Cited by 55 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To some extent the special conditions obtaining in the skin seem to play a part in sensitization with common protein antigens also. Thus Sulzberger (19) observed that the minimum amount of horse serum needed for anaphylactic sensitization was smaller when admirds~ tered by the intradermal than the subcutaneous route, a result which we were able to verify in more extensive tests, although the ratio of the minimum doses varied from one experiment to another.…”

Section: Mcmastersupporting

confidence: 53%

Studies on the Sensitization of Animals With Simple Chemical Compounds

Landsteiner

Chase

1939

Journal of Experimental Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the open questions concerning skin sensitization of the "contact dermatitis" type to simple chemical compounds is in which way sensitivity spreads all over the integument when only a given area is treated. This subject has been considered in a paper by Simon (1) and studied experimentally. The skin of guinea pigs was treated with concentrated nitric acid in such manner that a complete belt severed the continuity of the epidermis. Poison ivy extract was applied on the posterior part of the animals and after 10 days the anterior and the posterior parts were tested; both halves were seen to be sensitive. According to the author the evidence "indicates that • the route of distribution is not confined to the epidermis," and suggests that the spread is due to distribution of altered allergen by the blood stream or the lymphatic system. Furthermore, Simon observed that no significant difference exists in the degree of sensitivity between the area used for the sensitizing application and other parts of the skin, and by timed excisions found that such removal of the treated area did not interfere with the general skin sensitization provided it was performed later than 18 to 24 hours after the application of ivy extracts. He also found that sensitivity was first seen after a latency period of from 4 to 5 days.In contrast to the result of Simon, Straus and Coca (2) reported that in monkeys severance of the continuity of the skin some distance above the elbow and application of poison ivy extract to the forearm 767

show abstract

Section: Mcmastersupporting

confidence: 53%

Studies on the Sensitization of Animals With Simple Chemical Compounds

Landsteiner

Chase

1939

Journal of Experimental Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Feeding of the allergen to already sensitized animals has no effect on already established sensitiza tion. An observation by Sulzberger (78) on inhibiting sensitization to neoarsphenamine may have a similar mechanism. He found that a single intravenous injection of this substance usually prevents subsequent sensitization by intracutaneous injections of the drug.…”

Section: Inhibition Of Experimental Drug Allergy and Anaphylaxis By Pmentioning

confidence: 90%

Some Aspects of Active Immunization

Freund¹

1947

Annu. Rev. Microbiol.

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The same point is made by Straus (3) who found only one out of a group of 10 infants injected subcutaneously with poison ivy extract to develop sensitivity, in contrast to the more than 70 per cent positive results following cutaneous application; he remarks that it cannot be excluded that the one case might have been due to contamination of the epidermis. Similarly with neosalvarsan administered to guinea pigs, where the sensitization is not of the contact dermatitis type, Sulzberger (4) failed to obtain skin hypersensitiveness by the intramuscular, intraperitoneal, intratesticular, and intracardial routes, using a dosage effective when given intradermally. And in this laboratory preliminary experiments at sensitizing with intravenous or subcutaneous injections of 2:4 dinitroehlorobenzene were indecisive (5,6).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Studies on the Sensitization of Animals With Simple Chemical Compounds

Landsteiner

Chase

1940

Journal of Experimental Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From a survey of the literature it would appear that experimental skin sensitization with simple chemicals, unlike common anaphylactic sensitization, has been accomplished with certainty only by application of the incitant on or into the skin. Observations to this effect have been recorded by several authors. Simon et al. (1,2) state that in the course of experiments on sensitizing guinea pigs to poison ivy they had "no results except with the direct application of the extract to the skin." The same point is made by Straus (3) who found only one out of a group of 10 infants injected subcutaneously with poison ivy extract to develop sensitivity, in contrast to the more than 70 per cent positive results following cutaneous application; he remarks that it cannot be excluded that the one case might have been due to contamination of the epidermis. Similarly with neosalvarsan administered to guinea pigs, where the sensitization is not of the contact dermatitis type, Sulzberger (4) failed to obtain skin hypersensitiveness by the intramuscular, intraperitoneal, intratesticular, and intracardial routes, using a dosage effective when given intradermally. And in this laboratory preliminary experiments at sensitizing with intravenous or subcutaneous injections of 2:4 dinitroehlorobenzene were indecisive (5, 6). In fact, it is not infrequently held that skin sensitization is the result of a direct action on the epithelial cells, there inducing a specific change, and experiments which support this view have been performed by Straus and Coca (7; cf. 8) and more recently by Schreus and his coworkers (9, 10) (vide 11). There are some experiments, indeed, with apparently positive outcome after administration by non-cutaneous routes, e.g. with primula extract given intravenously (Bloch (12)) and with Japanese lacquer (Rhus vernicifera) by subcutaneous injection (Kobayashi (13)). The sensitivities so found were of lesser degree than those secured by dermal treatment, and were open to doubt since no mention is made in these reports of precautions against accidental contamination of the skin, a matter of im-

show abstract

Arsphenamine Hypersensitiveness in Guinea-Pigs

Cited by 55 publications

References 8 publications

Studies on the Sensitization of Animals With Simple Chemical Compounds

Studies on the Sensitization of Animals With Simple Chemical Compounds

Some Aspects of Active Immunization

Studies on the Sensitization of Animals With Simple Chemical Compounds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About