HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Freund, J. Articles by Bonanto, M. V. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Freund, J. Articles by Bonanto, M. V.

Antitoxin-Formation after Intravenous or Subcutaneous Injection of Plain or Alum Diphtheric Toxoid

From Department of Health of the City of New York, Bureau of Laboratories, Antitoxin Laboratory, Otisville, New York

Abstract

It is a widely accepted opinion that when toxins or toxoids are used to immunize horses the subcutaneous route is more effective than the intravenous (1). Neill, Sugg and Richardson (2) found that also in guinea pigs antitoxin-formation is stimulated more readily by intracutaneous or subcutaneous than by intravenous injection of diphtheric toxoid. The experimental data on which these conclusions are based were not reported by the authors. Watanabe (3) reported that hens which received intravenous injections of purified diphtheric toxoid or tetanal toxin produced more antitoxin in a shorter time than those which received subcutaneous injections. The titer of antitoxin was maintained for a longer period of time in hens which were immunized by the intravenous route. When bacterial suspensions are employed as antigens the vascular route is the more effective one. Schultz and Swift (4) observed this relationship in rabbits immunized with non-hemolytic streptococci.