The Journal of Experimental Medicine
BioLegend: New Th17, Treg Tools
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Services
Right arrow Email this article
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new content in the JEM
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Brown, W. H.
Right arrow Articles by Pearce, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Brown, W. H.
Right arrow Articles by Pearce, L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
The Journal of Experimental Medicine, Vol 33, 553-567, Copyright, 1921, by The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research New York


ARTICLE

SUPERINFECTION IN EXPERIMENTAL SYPHILIS FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION OF SUBCURATIVE DOSES OF ARSPHENAMINE OR NEOARSPHENAMINE

Wade H. Brown M.D.1 and Louise Pearce M.D.1

1 From the Laboratories of The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research.

Experiments were carried out on rabbits for the purpose of determining the effects of subcurative doses of arsphenamine and of neo-arsphenamine upon the resistance of infected animals to reinoculation with Treponema pallidum and hence the possibilities of the occurrence of a second infection in treated but uncured cases of infection.

All the animals used were inoculated with the same virus, and the experimental tests were carried out when the first cycle of testicular reaction was nearing its height. The animals with the most marked testicular lesions were used for the basic experiment of treatment and reinoculation. The results of this experiment were controlled from four different standpoints: (1) the effect of the treatment employed upon the existing infection; (2) the immunity present at the time of treatment; (3) the virulence of the organisms used for reinoculation as compared with those causing the existing infection; (4) the comparative susceptibility of normal animals to the virus used for reinoculation.

The results obtained showed (1) that the treatment employed was insufficient to cure any of the therapeutic controls; (2) that the infected controls were highly refractory to a second inoculation; (3) that the treated animals were highly susceptible to a second inoculation and although not cured of their original infection, reacted to the second inoculation with the formation of lesions indistinguishable from those of a first infection; (4) that in certain instances the treatment given had rendered infected animals more susceptible to infection than the normal controls.

Submitted on February 20, 1921


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:



  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search
TABLE OF CONTENTS