Advertisement

Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine

, Volume 48, Issue 4, pp 1213–1216 | Cite as

The anaphylactic reaction and tachyphylaxis to eggwhite in albino rats

  • Ma Pao-Li
Pathological Physiology and General Pathology
  • 16 Downloads

Summary

Anaphylactic shock in rats may be provoked by an initial intravenous injection of fresh eggwhite. Previous administration of cortisone or desoxycorticosterone reduces the animals' resistance to the initial eggwhite injection, while adrenalectomy sharply decreases it.

Cortisone restores the resistance reduced by adrenalectomy, while DOCS produces no appreciable effect.

Resistance to eggwhite is also decreased on the 25th day after hypophysectomy, although to a smaller extent than in adrenalectomy.

Different doses of ACTH employed at various intervals had no visible compensatory effect.

The condition of tachyphylaxis occurred after the first injection of egg white. Preliminary cortisone and DOCS administration more or less preserved the ability to produce a tachyphylactic response.

Keywords

Public Health Intravenous Injection Cortisone Small Extent Anaphylactic Reaction 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. [1]
    B. I. Kadykov, Byull. eksptl. biol. i med., volume 4, No. 5, pp. 518–520 (1937).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    B. V. Polushkin, in book: Collected Works of the Altai Medical Institute, In Russian. (Barnaul, 1957) volume 1, pp. 253–264.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    W. G. Clark, E. M. Mackay, Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol. and Med. (1949), v. 71, p. 86–87.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    L. H. Criep, L. D. Mayer, et al., J. Allergy 22, 314–329 (1951).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    J. Leger, G. Masson, and J. L. Prado, Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol., and Med. (1947) v. 64, p. 366–370.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. Leger and G. Masson, Am. J. Med. Sc. (1947) v. 214, p. 305–307.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. Leger and G. Masson, Ann. Allergy 6, 131 (1948).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    S. J. Malkiel, J. Immunol. 66, 379 (1951).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. Molomut, J. Immunol. 1951 v. 66 p. 379.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    J. T. Parker, F. J. Parker, Med. Res., 1924, v. 44, p. 263–287.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    J. R. Parrat, G. B. West, Brit. J. Pharmacol. 1958, v. 13, p. 65–70.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    W. D. M. Paton, Progress in Allergy, 1958, v. 5, p. 79–148.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    L. J. Reed, H. Muench, Am. J. Hyg., 1938, v. 27, p. 493–497.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    M. Schachter, J. Jalenik, J. Physiol., 1952, v. 118, p. 258–263.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    H. Selye, Endocrinology, 1937, v. 21, p. 169–188.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    H. Selye, Canad. M. A. J. 1949, v. 61, p. 553–556.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    P. E. Smith, Am. J. Anat., 1930, v. 45, p. 205–273.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Consultants Bureau, Inc. 1959

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ma Pao-Li
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pathological PhysiologyN. I. Pirogov II Moscow Medical InstituteMoscowUSSR

Personalised recommendations