Studies on the Sensitization of Animals With Simple Chemical Compounds. Ii

Landsteiner, Karl; Jacobs, John

doi:10.1084/jem.64.4.625

Cited by 307 publications

(154 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

145

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…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.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Studies on the Sensitization of Animals With Simple Chemical Compounds

Landsteiner

Chase

1940

Journal of Experimental Medicine

Self Cite

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

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Studies on the Sensitization of Animals With Simple Chemical Compounds

Landsteiner

Chase

1940

Journal of Experimental Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Picryl chloride was chosen because it serves as a good example of a simple chemical hapten capable of spontaneous combination with protein and conversion to complete antigenic form after injection into the tissues (9)(10)(11). In addition, Landsteiner and Chase (12,13), Gell and coworkers (11), and Chase (14) have provided an extensive immunological characterization of this substance, including the serological and hypersensitive manifestations to it under different conditions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Rôle of the "Wax" of the Tubercle Bacillus in Establishing Delayed Hypersensitivity

Raffel

Forney

1948

Journal of Experimental Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One highly puzzling aspect of the phenomenon of the delayed hypersensitivity of infection, namely, the necessity for the presence of the entire organism in the tissues in order that the hypersensitive state be induced, has been dealt with in previous publications in relation to tuberculosis (1, 2). Although it is well known in the case of the tubercle bacill~s timt the protein of the organism is the antigenic component responsible for the hypersensitive state/this substance in isolated form is powerless to bring about the typical hypersensitivity which follows either infection or the injection of killed bacterial cells, and this despite the well established antigenic properties of such protein. It was demonstinted that the protein could become effective ff at the same time the animal received another component of the bacillus; i.e., the waxy lipid extractable with chloroform (3). A series of criteria established that the hypersensitive state so induced fulfills in all particulars that which follows on the heels of tuberculous infection.In work of this nature, a point of confusion may arise from the failure to distinguish--in the mind of the investigator as well as in the inductive procedures employed--the nature of delayed hypersensitivity and the basic differences segregating it from hypersensitivity of the immediate type, including anaphylaxis, Arthns reactivity, and the human "atopic" states. Briefly stated, the differences are these:1. Immediate hypersensitive reactions follow exposure to antigen within seconds or minutes. Delayed reactions require hours and progress relatively slowly.2. In immediate hypersensitivity a demonstrable humoml antibody is involved, since this will transfer the state to normal recipients. In delayed reactivity no antibody has ever been demonstrated; the only successful attempts to transfer the state have been those employing cells obtained, for example, from an induced peritoneal exuclate (4-8).

show abstract

“…Similarly, a publication from the year 1936 reports that 1,4-dichlorobenzene is not sensitizing on guinea pig skin [61].…”

Section: Allergenic Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

1,4‐Dichlorobenzene [MAK Value Documentation, 1992]

2012

The MAK‐Collection for Occupational Health and Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Published in the series Occupational Toxicants , Vol. 4 (1992) The article contains sections titled: Toxic Effects and Modes of Action Pharmacokinetics Effects in Man Effects on Animals Acute toxicity Subacute and subchronic toxicity Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity Genotoxicity and DNA‐Binding Carcinogenicity α 2µ ‐Globulin nephropathy in male rats treated with 1,4‐dichlorobenzene Other Effects Manifesto (MAK value, classification)

show abstract

Studies on the Sensitization of Animals With Simple Chemical Compounds. Ii

Cited by 307 publications

References 10 publications

Studies on the Sensitization of Animals With Simple Chemical Compounds

Studies on the Sensitization of Animals With Simple Chemical Compounds

The Rôle of the "Wax" of the Tubercle Bacillus in Establishing Delayed Hypersensitivity

1,4‐Dichlorobenzene [MAK Value Documentation, 1992]

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About