Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 567

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

DISQUISITIONS ON ORIGINAL ANTIGENIC SIN

Open access
de St.Groth, S. Fazekas, Webster, R. G.·1966·The Journal of Experimental Medicine

Abstract

When primary immunity is boosted not by the homologous but by a crossreacting vaccine, the newly formed antibodies react better with the primary antigen than with the antigen actually eliciting the response. This phenomenon bears the name of Original Antigenic Sin (1). It is shown that the number of antibody molecules produced against the original and the vaccinating antigen is the same; that each of these molecules is capable of reacting with both antigens; that the activity of an antiserum can be completely absorbed with either antigen; that both residual and adsorbed-dissociated fractions of antibody exhibit the same relative affinities towards the two antigens as did the native serum; that, unlike standard primary and secondary responses, the population of antibody molecules characterizing the Original Antigenic Sin is homogeneous; that each molecule has a lower equilibrium constant (i.e. higher avidity) against the original antigen than against the antigen stimulating the present response; and that all equilibrium constants are typical of secondary antibody. It is concluded that the Original Antigenic Sin is a partial anamnestic response, a related antigen stimulating that sector only of the originally primed cells which is destined to produce cross-reacting antibody. A hypothesis is developed according to which the basic difference between primary and secondary reactivity rests on the presence of a trapping mechanism that allows anamnestic production of antibody against lower doses of the homologous antigen. Such a mechanism is capable of cross-trapping related antigens, thus preventing a standard primary response and allowing manifestations of Original Antigenic Sin.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1084/jem.124.3.331

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 567

Metadata

Authors
de St.Groth, S. F., & Webster, R. G.
Venue
The Journal of Experimental Medicine
Published
1966-09-01
Volume
124
Issue
3
Pages
331-345
ISSN
  • 0022-1007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-9538
OpenAlex
W2146581768
Cited by
567
References
5
FWCI
5.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: DISQUISITIONS ON ORIGINAL ANTIGENIC SIN. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1084/jem.124.3.331
The paper
de St.Groth, S. F., & Webster, R. G. (1966). DISQUISITIONS ON ORIGINAL ANTIGENIC SIN. The Journal of Experimental Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.124.3.331

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.