Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T08:36:12.180Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experiments on the Origin of the Wassermann Reaction in the Cerebro-Spinal Fluid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2018

A. Beck
A. Beck*
Affiliation:
(From the Central Pathological Laboratory of the L.C.C. Mental Hospitals, and the Devonport Laboratories, Seamen's Hospital
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.

Whilst it is an undisputed fact that under certain clinical and experimental conditions various antibodies (antitoxins, agglutinins, bacterio- and hæmolysins, complement-fixing antibodies) can be demonstrated in the cerebrospinal fluid, there is a divergency of opinion about their origin. Whereas some authors (Dujardin and Dumont, Ramon, Descombey and Bilal, Neufeld and Szyle, Nélis) ascribe their presence in the cerebro-spinal fluid to their passage from the blood through a damaged blood-cerebro-spinal fluid barrier, other investigators (Mutermilch, liiert, Grabow and Plaut, Friedemann and Elkeles) believe that the central nervous system or its membranes are able to produce antibodies on their own upon contact with an antigen. In the case of the Wassermann antibody in the cerebro-spinal fluid the question of its origin is of particular interest, because of the occasional occurrence of cases which show a positive Wassermann reaction in the cerebro-spinal fluid and a negative or weaker reaction in the blood. This divergence between blood and cerebro-spinal fluid is often quoted as an example of the independence of the cerebro-spinal fluid antibody.

Type
Part I.—Original Articles
Information
Journal of Mental Science , Volume 84 , Issue 349 , March 1938 , pp. 370 - 377
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1938 

References

1 Dujardin, B., and Dumont, F., Arch. Int. Med., 1927, iii, p. 121.Google Scholar
2 Friedemann, U., and Elkeles, A., Klin. Wochenschr., 1930, p. 1907.Google Scholar
3 Grabow, C., and Plaut, F., Zeitschr. Immunforsch., 1928, liv, p. 335.Google Scholar
4 Hauptmann, and Grätner, , Arch. Psychol., 1930, x, p. 151.Google Scholar
5 liiert, F., Zeitschr. Hyg. Infekt, krkh., 1927, cviii, p. 90.Google Scholar
6 Levaditi, C., Vaisman, A., and Schoen, R., Ann. Inst. Past., 1936, lvi, p. 481.Google Scholar
7 Mutermilch, S., Compt. Rend. Soc. Biol., 1926, xcv, pp. 945, 1018; ibid., 1927, xcvi, p. 397; ibid., 1929, ci, p. 284; ibid., 1930, civ, p. 28.Google Scholar
8 Nélis, P., ibid., 1937, cxxvi, p. 172.Google Scholar
9 Neufeld, L., Krankheitsforsch., 1925, ii, p. 63; idem and Szyle, D., Zeitschr. Exp. Med., 1928, lx, p. 355.Google Scholar
10 Plaut, F., Zeitschr. Neur. Psych., 1921, lxv, p. 373; idem, ibid., 1930, cxxviii, p. 413; idem and Mulzer, P., Münch, med. Wochenschr., 1921, lxviii, p. 833; ibid., 1923, lxx, p. 762; idem and Neubürger, K., ibid., 1923, lxx, p. 1401.Google Scholar
11 Raiziss, G. W., and Severac, M., Arch. Derm. Syph., 1932, xxvi, p. 271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Ramon, G., Descombey, P., and Bilal, S., Compt. Rend. Soc. Biol., 1931, cviii, p. 361.Google Scholar
13 Schlossberger, H., Arbeit. Staatsinst. f. exp. Therap., Frankfurt, 1928, xxi, p. 344.Google Scholar
14 Steiner, G., Zeitschr. Neur. Psych., 1914, x, p. 43.Google Scholar
15 Tani, T., Saito, K., and Funada, H., Zentralbl. f. Bakt., I Orig., 1931/32, cxxiii, p. 219; idem and Okaya, T., ibid., 1933, cxxvii, p. 430; idem and Ogiuti, K., Jap. Journ. Exper. Med., 1935, xiii, p. 75.Google Scholar
16 Truffi, M., Centenaire d'Alfred Fournier, Paris, J. Peyronnet, 1932.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.