Observations on anaphylaxis in lower monkeys

It is always dangerous to apply to any species of animal reasoning or theories deduced from experimental observations upon another species. In no phase of immunological work is such deduction more unjustified than in anaphylaxis where we know that the reactions induced in different species by a reinjection of proteins vary from each other in fundamental, physiological mechanism. It is of course unlikely, therefore, that we can justly draw conclusions from monkey experiments to conditions prevailing in human beings. But some of those who have regarded the occurrence of true anaphylaxis in the human being as at least doubtful, have, at the same time, cited the difficulty of producing anaphylactic reactions in monkeys in analogy. The problem is hardly one warranting a great deal of extensive research, but in connection with other work going on in our laboratory, we have found it important to investigate, for ourselves, the true conditions prevailing in the lower monkeys.

The production of antibodies in monkeys has for some time been a matter of controversy. Uhlenhuth 1 injected human serum into Macacus rhesus and found that specific precipitins were formed. Berkeley, 2 in 1913, reinvestigated this question on Macacus rhesus and on a Java monkey, and found that these animals treated with human, horse or dog sera, receiving four injections of 1 to 2 c.c. of these sera, produced neither precipitins nor complement fixing antibodies for the antigens used. He does not believe, therefore, that it would be possible to utilize antisera from lower monkeys for the forensic differentiation of human and monkey sera, as suggested by Uhlenhuth.

There has not been a great deal of systematic work published upon monkey anaphylaxis. Yamanouchi 3 was unable to produce active anaphylaxis in the lower monkeys against horse serum, and found that the serum of the lower monkeys did not sensitize guinea pigs passively.