...
Activation of complement leads to:
- direct destruction of cells through lysis (via the Membrane Attack Complex, which basically stabs holes in target cells)
- 'opsonisation', which is making target cells 'tastier' to Neutrophils and other phagocytosing cells
- Attracting immune cells players to the target cells/infected area
- Clumping together of pathogens, which takes them out of play and makes them easier prey for the immune system.
Anyway, a surprising but interesting finding.
Opsonisation is one of the few parts of immune response with a long research history going back to 1907. It even made it
into world literature via the works of G.B. Shaw and Sinclair Lewis. At that time the most important diseases were syphilis, typhoid and TB, which were very hard to treat without antibiotics.
Chemotherapy meant something different at that time than it does today, but one aspect of the ideas has not changed: there are bad cells in there, and it is up to us to destroy them. The principle goal was to find what Ehrlich called "magic bullets" (Zauberkugeln). From the German word it is clear he was thinking about a scatter-shot approach. This was total war, with the patient's body as the unfortunate battlefield.
The other aspect was that besides homing in on the offending cells, it was necessary for these bullets to have a toxic payload. In the case of Salvarsan, that was arsenic.
When Protosil was discovered, many years later, the idea was that a dye molecule would bind to bacteria, which would then be poisoned by the rest of the chemical. Scientists at the Pasteur Institute then found that metabolism separated the dye from the sulfanilamide molecule before it reached bacteria. This unpatentable molecule had stronger antibacterial action than Prontosil.
The final question about toxicity was answered even later. Sulfanilamide has remarkably low toxicity, which allowed it to be sprinkled directly on fresh wounds during WWII. It is an antimetabolite which bacteria will consume without gaining energy. In effect it is diet food for germs. It didn't directly kill them, but it slowed their metabolism enough to limit reproduction so that ordinary immune cells could cope.
So, in short, the two fundamental features of that theory of chemotherapy were wrong. It was only through a great deal of trial and error that researchers stumbled across an antibacterial that did more harm to bacteria than to patients.
Even this account leaves a major question unanswered: what did these toxic payloads do to the phagocytes which cleaned up the mess after bacteria died? Damaging patient immune systems or organs like the liver could lead to even worse problems.
We are just now emerging from that era, with techniques like
adoptive immunotherapy, to concentrate on properly directing the patient's own immune cells. These turn out to be quite capable of disposing of pounds of cancer cells without killing patients. Doctors dealing with infectious disease and autoimmune diseases are just beginning to recognize that something is wrong with the predominant paradigms in these fields. Having cleared away a great many microbes which could be killed with crude measures we are now forced to deal with those which have developed sophisticated strategies for misdirecting immune response. Our own ability to direct immune response is severely hampered by not even knowing what we are aiming at in most clinical cases.
What we can say about current practice is that doctors find it convenient, and most patients survive, most of the time. Such is the state of the art.