Huygelen C
Verh K Acad Geneeskd Belg. 1997;59(4):237-85.
Louis Willems's name is intimately linked with the history of prophylactic immunization in the nineteenth century. When he obtained his medical degree in 1849 contagious bovine pleuropneumonia or lung sickness was raging among the cattle population in most European countries. As the son of a cattle fattener Willems was confronted directly with the problem in his father's stables and decided to study the disease and to search for a remedy to combat it. The disease is caused by Mycoplasma mycoides and subspecies mycoides, but in the middle of the nineteenth century during the battle between the miasmatists and the contagionists, many had doubts about its contagiousness. Willems defended from the start the contagiousness of the disease and noticed that animals who had survived an infection did not contract it a second time. He demonstrated that inoculation of the serous fluid from the lungs or from the pleural cavity of affected animals into healthy cattle led to pronounced local reactions. When these inoculated animals later on came into contact with diseased cattle they were shown to be immune. In his first trials he inoculated at the base of the tail or around the nostrils but this led to very severe reactions and frequently to death. He then started inoculating at the tip of the tail with much better results. Most animals showed a more or less pronounced reaction at the inoculation site and about seven percent lost their tail partially or completely through necrosis, but the mortality remained very limited. The local reactions were caused by the etiological agent itself. The lesions in the connective tissue of the tail showed much resemblance to those in the interlobular septa of the lungs and contained strong accumulations of serous fluid. The tip of the tail was obviously a good choice; this was confirmed later by many authors and the procedure is still being used today in areas where the disease is still prevalent. Inoculation at other sites of the body such as the neck or the dewlap, led to very severe reactions often followed by death. Willems also demonstrated that local inoculation at the tip of the tail not only immunized the animals against infection via the respiratory tract resulting from contact with diseased animals, but also against a second inoculation in the tail, in the neck or elsewhere. Material harvested from the inoculation site in the tail (so-called secondary "virus") could also be used as inoculum. Animals who showed no reaction to the first inoculation received a second one after a few weeks. Immunization as a result of inoculation was proved repeatedly experimentally as well in Willem's lifetime, by himself and by his contemporaries, as later in more recent trials. Failures were usually attributable to inoculation of already infected animals or to the use of badly stored or purulent inocula. Inoculation during the incubation period did not provide protection. Willems' concepts about the mechanisms of immunity were understandably vague and ill-defined. He considered pleuropneumonia as an affection of the whole body with process in the lung in case of natural infection; following inoculation this process took place somewhere else and one created as it were a typical lung infection at another site of the body. Through the introduction of the "virus" a "dynamisation" of the whole body took place by which the blood and other organs became insensitive to reinfection. This explained why the inoculation protected not only the inoculation site, but the whole organism; Willems thought that the infection did not spread from inoculated to non-inoculated animals; this opinion was supported by some other workers in the field but opposed by others. The publication of his results created enormous interest in his country and abroad. In several countries commissions were created, trials were initiated and several foreign observers came to visit Willems in Hasselt. In general his results were confirmed abroad at least
路易·威廉姆斯的名字与19世纪的预防性免疫史紧密相连。1849年他获得医学学位时,传染性牛胸膜肺炎或牛肺病正在大多数欧洲国家的牛群中肆虐。作为一个养牛人的儿子,威廉姆斯在他父亲的牛棚里直接面对了这个问题,并决定研究这种疾病并寻找治疗方法。这种疾病是由丝状支原体及其丝状亚种引起的,但在19世纪中叶,在瘴气论者和传染论者的争论中,许多人对其传染性表示怀疑。威廉姆斯从一开始就捍卫这种疾病的传染性,并注意到感染后存活下来的动物不会再次感染。他证明,将患病动物肺部或胸腔的浆液接种到健康牛身上会引发明显的局部反应。当这些接种过的动物后来与患病牛接触时,它们被证明具有免疫力。在他的首次试验中,他在牛尾巴根部或鼻孔周围进行接种,但这会导致非常严重的反应,而且经常导致死亡。然后他开始在尾巴尖进行接种,效果要好得多。大多数动物在接种部位或多或少会有明显反应,约7%的动物尾巴因坏死而部分或全部脱落,但死亡率仍然非常低。局部反应是由病原体本身引起的。尾巴结缔组织中的病变与肺部小叶间隔中的病变非常相似,并且含有大量浆液积聚。显然,尾巴尖是个不错的选择;许多作者后来证实了这一点,而且在这种疾病仍然流行的地区,这个方法至今仍在使用。在身体的其他部位如颈部或垂皮进行接种,会导致非常严重的反应,常常随后死亡。威廉姆斯还证明,在尾巴尖进行局部接种不仅能使动物对因接触患病动物而通过呼吸道感染产生免疫,而且对在尾巴、颈部或其他部位的再次接种也有免疫作用。从尾巴接种部位采集的物质(所谓的二次“病毒”)也可用作接种物。对首次接种没有反应的动物在几周后会进行第二次接种。在威廉姆斯有生之年,他本人及其同时代人以及后来在更近的试验中,多次通过实验证明接种可产生免疫。失败通常归因于对接种已感染动物或使用储存不当或化脓的接种物。在潜伏期进行接种不能提供保护。可以理解的是,威廉姆斯关于免疫机制的概念模糊且不明确。他认为胸膜肺炎是一种全身性疾病,在自然感染的情况下肺部会出现病变;接种后,这个过程会在其他地方发生,就好像在身体的另一个部位制造了一种典型的肺部感染。通过引入“病毒”,全身发生了一种“动态变化”,通过这种变化,血液和其他器官对再次感染变得不敏感。这就解释了为什么接种不仅能保护接种部位,还能保护整个机体;威廉姆斯认为感染不会从接种动物传播到未接种动物;这一观点得到了该领域其他一些研究人员的支持,但也遭到了其他人的反对。他的研究结果发表后,在国内外引起了极大关注。在几个国家成立了委员会,开始进行试验,一些外国观察员来到哈瑟尔特拜访威廉姆斯。总的来说,他的研究结果在国外至少得到了证实。