Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine

, Volume 57, Issue 4, pp 427–429 | Cite as

Differences between the β-feto-protein of different individuals

  • S. S. Vasileiskii
  • V. I. Yablokova
Biochemistry and Biophysics


With the aid of electrophoresis in agar gel with subsequent diffusion immuno-manifestation a study was made of the degree of immunological similarity between the fetoproteins in the serum of individual human fetuses. Alphafeto-protein was identical in all of the fetuses investigated, whereas beta-feto-protein differed in one case; a cross with a common precipitation line. This serum belonged to one of the two premature 33-week-old twins. (a boy and a girl). In the serum of the second twin beta-feto-protein was identical to that of the first and also gave a cross phenomenon with all the rest. The mentioned protein was absent from the sera of adults.


Public Health Agar Human Fetus Subsequent Diffusion Precipitation Line 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    A. C. Allison and B. S. Blumberg, Lancet, Vol. 1 (1961), p. 634.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. W. Aly, G. Brinker et al., Nature, Vol. 194 (1962), p. 1091.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Arends et al., Ibid., Vol. 196,, p. 477.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. S. Blumberg, S. Dray, and J. C. Robinson, Ibid., Vol. 194,, p. 656.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. G. Bergstrand and B. Gzar, Scand. j. clin. Lab. Invest., Vol. 9 (1957), p. 277.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Bodman, Clin. chim. Acta, Vol. 4 (1959), p. 103.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Cleve et al., Nature, Vol. 195 (1962), p. 86.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Galatius-Jensen, The Haptoglobins. A Genetical Study. Kobenhavn, 1960.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Galdo, J. P. Casado, and R. Talavera, Arch. franc. Pediat., Vol. 16, (1959), p. 954.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. R. Giblett et al., Nature, Vol. 192 (1961, p. 1300.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Grubb and A. B. Laurell, Acta path. microbiol. scand., Vol. 39 (1956), p. 390.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    I. Halbrecht et al., Am. J. clin. Path., Vol. 29 (1958), p. 340.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Hirschfeld, Nature, Vol. 187 (1960), p. 126.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Hirschfeld, Science tools, Vol. 7 (1960), p. 18.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Hirschfeld, et al., Nature, Vol. 185 (1960), p. 931.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Hirschfeld and J. Sonnet, Nature, Vol. 192 (1961), p. 766.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. L. Kirk et al., Acta genet. (Basel), Vol. 11 (1961), p. 97.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Moretti et al., Compt. rend. Soc. Biol., Vol. 151 (1957), p. 832.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    G. Muralt et al., Helv. paediat. Acta, Vol. 16, (1961), p. 517.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Nyman, Clin. chim. Acta., Vol. 3 (1958), p. 111.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. Smith et al., Nature, Vol. 193 (1962), p. 286.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    O. Smithes, Biochem. J., Vol. 61 (1955), p. 629.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Consultants Bureau Enterprises, Inc. 1964

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. S. Vasileiskii
    • 1
  • V. I. Yablokova
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Biochemistry Research Institute of Obstetrics and GynecologyUSSR Ministry of HealthMoscow

Personalised recommendations