In the study of sensitizations to simple chemicals, there are two somewhat ^ related chemical problems. One is the nature of the union between the sensitizing chemical and the tissues of the host in order to engender the eczematous sensitization, and the other is in what chemical respects can a substance that is capable of evoking a reaction in the already sensitized animal deviate from the parent sensitizing compound? It has been reasonably well shown, originally by v Landsteiner (1) and subsequently confirmed by others, that simple chemical compounds which are capable of inducing the eczematous variety of the delayed type of allergic sensitization enter into some sort of union with the tissues of the host. The simplest hypothesis is that a protein conjugate is made. There seems to be direct chemical evidence for this type of union with certain classes of compounds, such as substituted nitro- and halo-benzenes, especially the di-y nitrophenyls. Such a union may not be true for all substances which yield an eczematous sensitization, e.g., nickel, for, as Gell (2) states: Many chemical compounds which act as sensitizers have one general feature in common: they are capable of reacting with a group or groups in the molecule of a protein to form a conjugate. A second type of sensitizer is not able K itself to combine with protein, but may be metabolized in the body to a deriva-tive possessing such powers of combination. There may be a third category of > sensitizers which do not react chemically but form strong adsorption complexes with protein. In any case the conjugate or adsorption complex so formed will > become antigenically distinct from the parent protein, and if the sensitizer gains access to the tissues of an animal the proteins of the latter may be ren- * dered antigenic.
Read full abstract