The protective antibody content of normal cow serum is below that of colostrum of the same animal. The method used does not permit the titration of the actual amount of the antibody in serum. Quantities up to 2 cc. have no protective effect. The same limitations apply to the titration of milk owing to the introduction of large quantitites of foreign protein into the peritoneal cavity of the guinea pig. When cows were immunized and a serum of high titer obtained, the antibodies in the milk of such cows rose to within the range of the method of testing. The relation of the protective capacity of serum to that of milk was approximately 1/120 and 1/40 in the two animals. These figures do not differ much from those obtained by early investigators titrating the antitoxic content of serum and milk of animals undergoing immunization with diphtheria toxin. In the two experiments on calves, 2¼ and 18 days old respectively, fed a highly protective serum, no increase in agglutinins or protective antibodies could be demonstrated. The postponement of colostrum to the 12th and 18th hour, respectively did not prevent normal growth.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
Article|
March 01 1930
THE IMMUNOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF COLOSTRUM : I. THE RELATION BETWEEN COLOSTRUM, SERUM, AND THE MILK OF COWS NORMAL AND IMMUNIZED TOWARDS B. COLI
Theobald Smith
Theobald Smith
From the Department of Animal Pathology of The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, N. J.
Search for other works by this author on:
Theobald Smith
From the Department of Animal Pathology of The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, N. J.
Received:
January 05 1930
Online Issn: 1540-9538
Print Issn: 0022-1007
Copyright, 1930, by The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research New York
1930
J Exp Med (1930) 51 (3): 473–481.
Article history
Received:
January 05 1930
Citation
Theobald Smith; THE IMMUNOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF COLOSTRUM : I. THE RELATION BETWEEN COLOSTRUM, SERUM, AND THE MILK OF COWS NORMAL AND IMMUNIZED TOWARDS B. COLI . J Exp Med 1 March 1930; 51 (3): 473–481. doi: https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.51.3.473
Download citation file:
377
Views
0
Citations
Suggested Content
Advertisement