DISCUSSION 105 



REFERENCES 



1. Boaz, H., and Rollefson. C. K., J. Am. Cliein. Soc, 72, 3435 (1950). 



2. Coons. A. H., and Kaplan, M. H., J. Exptl. Med., 91, 1 (1950). 



3. Creech. H. |.. and Jones, R. H., /. Am. Cliem. Soc. 72, 16()1, 1G70, (1941). 



4. Debye. 1'., and Kdwards, J. O., Science, 116, 143 (1952). 



5. l-ciister, T., Atin. Ph\sik. 2, 55 (1947). 



(). Ffirster, T., Z. FJektrochem.. 54, 42 (1954). 



7. Grossweiner, L. L., /. CJiem. Fhys., 24,|255 (1956), 



8. Jablonski, .\., Acta Phys. Polon., 10, 33, 193 (1950). 

 8a.jai)lonski, .\., Z. Phy.sik. 96, 236 (1935). 



9. Lewis, G. N., and Kasha, M., /. Am. CItem. Soc, 66, 2100 (1944). 



10. Linschitz, H., and Saikanen. K., /. Am. Cliem. Soc, 80, 4826 (1958). 



11. Lippert, E., 7- ^/f^^'w/^'/n., 61, 962 (1957). 



12. Livingstone, R. .\., J. Am. Cliem. Soc, 11, 2179 (1955). 



13. Oncley, J. L., Chem. Revs. 30. 433 (1942). 



14. Onsager, .\.. ]. Am. Chem. Soc, 58, 1486 (1936). 



15. Pen-in, F., /. Phys., 1, 390 (1926). 



16. Pen-in, F.. Ann. Phys., 12, 169 (1929). 



17. Pen-in. F., Ann. Phys., 17. 283 (1932). 



18. Pheofilov, P. P., and SveshnikofF, B., /. Phys. U.S.S.R., 3, 493 (1940). 



19. Piatt, J. R., /. Chem. Phys., 17, 484 (1949). 



20. Porter, G., Radiation Research Supplement 1, 479 (1959). 



21. Steele, R., and Szent-Gyorgi, A., Proc Xat. Acad. Sci. U. S., 44, 540 (1958). 



22. Steiner, R. A., and McAllister, A., /. Polymer Sci., 24, 205 (1957). 



23. Teale, F. W. J., and Weber, G., Biochem. J., 65, ^t (1957). 



24. Teale, F. ^^'. J., and ^Veber, G., Proc. Biochem. Soc, in Biochem. ]., 72, p. 15. 



(1959). 

 24a.Velick, S., /. Biol. Chem., 233, 1455 (1958). 



25. Weber, G.. Biochem. ]., 51, 1.55 (1952). 



26. Weber, G., Trans. Faraday Soc, 50, 554 (1954). 



27. ■\Veber, G., /. chim. phys., 878 (1958). 



28. Weber, G., Biochem. ]'., 73, 335 (1960). 



29. Weber, G., and Teale. F. \W. J., Discussions Faraday Soc, 27, 134 (1959). 



30. White, A., Biochem. J., 71, 217 (19e§)5Y 



31. White, A., Doctoral Thesis, University of Sheffield, (1960). 



DISCUSSION 



Dr. Franck: Could you gi\e us a resume of the material you presented here 

 and conclusions that you wanted to make. 



Dr. Weber: There are many ways in which the properties of the excited 

 state can be utilized to study points of ignorance of the structure and func- 

 tion of protein molecules. 



Dr. Franck: If you have polarization in protein molecules how do you line 

 them up to the light? 



Dr. Weber: The light picks out the molecules which are properly oriented. 



Dr. French: Did you say whether the urea influenced the intensity of 

 fluorescence of proteins or not? 



Dr. Weber: \'es, it does. There is no general rule. It influences very often 

 in opposite directions. Some proteins on treatment with urea show a decrease 



