Abstract
During the past decade, one of us (Brooks) has made extensive investigations of new methods for combating infections. In the course of this study, the following hypothesis was formulated: 1 In the blood and blood-forming organs are found the various chemical structures, cellular or otherwise, which are responsible for the production of the antibodies, formed in the immunity response to infection. Consequently the blood should be good material from which to isolate immunifacient antigen bodies.
Acting upon this theory, a protein was carefully prepared by shattering the fibrin of ox-blood with hydrochloric acid and pepsin. The residue was fractionated by precipitation with ammonium sulfate, retaining the lower secondary proteoses, which are the most active components. These proteoses, he found, were multiple in number and varied in nature, but their very complexity may explain their service in combating infections of different etiology.
A host of workers has searched for a protein which would be efficient therapeutically, and yet rid of the disagreeable concomitants of protein action; namely, fever, chills, sweating, etc. The above mentioned proteose seems to fill this requirement. Brooks and Stanton 2 noted the absence of the so-called “characteristic protein reaction” and at first, on this account, were inclined to doubt the efficacy of this shattered hemo-protein antigen, but this view was dispelled by the remarkable success of this protein in a large series of cases of acute and chronic arthritis. The general opinion heretofore is best expressed by quoting Petersen 3 :
“There is a probability that … the positive phase or mechanism of recovery after non-specific injections is a function, or at least very closely related to the degree of the negative phase or the intensification of the disease process that is clinically manifest in the reaction of the patient.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.