10 THE BACTERIOPHAGE AND ITS BEHAVIOR 



posed as we know, of microcytase and of fixateur. It may be inferred that they 

 believe it comparable to the alexin of Buchner, which is simply a mixture of the 

 two substances already named. Unfortunately, all that this theory of Emmerich 

 and Low accomplishes is to confuse the reader, and in their publications no proof 

 of their aflBrmations is to be found. In fact, many statements which they make 

 are at variance with well established observations. Thus, they speak of a com- 

 plete dissolution of the bacilli of swine erysipelas within the vaccinated animals by 

 their soluble "immuno-proteidine-erysipelase." This has never been demon- 

 strated by them and is indeed in complete contradiction to conscientious observa- 

 tions and to well established facts. On the other hand, they make statements in 

 themselves contradictory. The "immuno-proteidine-pyocyanease" is a sub- 

 stance possessing an extraordinary bactericidal power, not only for the pyo- 

 cyaneus bacillus but also for several other bacteria, such as the organisms of 

 anthrax, of diphtheria, of typhoid, and of plague. This substance quickly 

 dissolves these bacteria and cures experimental diphtheria and anthrax, but at the 

 same time it is actually subject to contamination by even the most banal organ- 

 isms, such as B. subtilis, from which it is necessary to protect it by the addition 

 of antiseptics. To all of these contradictions, uncertainties, and inaccuracies 

 it is still further necessary to add the advice, actually given to bacteriologists by 

 Emmerich and Low, that their experiments should not be repeated, for they are 

 not to be successfully performed with ease. In this state of affairs I believe that 

 despite the attractiveness in attributing to bacterial products a role in the elabo- 

 ration of antibacterial substances, it is necessary to forbear from following further 

 these authors. 



Did the bacteriophage play a role in these experiments of Emmerich 

 and Low? It is indeed difficult to tell, but, if they are correct, or at 

 least if the basis is correct, there can be no doubt that these authors 

 have observed "something." There is hardly more than one possible 

 explanation. One of the old cultures employed in obtaining their 

 so-called "immuno-protein" must have been contaminated with the 

 bacteriophage. We know, for example, that in working with about 

 100 different strains of the cholera vibrio Flu-o encountered one, and 

 one only, which was contaminated with the bacteriophage. This 

 bacteriophage caused within 3 or 4 hours the dissolution of a suspen- 

 sion of the cholera vibrio derived from any strain whatever. 



Upon the basis of a single fact, accidentally observed, Emmerich 

 and Low doubtless made generaUzations too hastily. Imbued with the 

 theory of antibodies they were unable to comprehend what they had 

 observed. Neither they themselves nor anyone else have been able 

 to repeat their experiments, and because most certainly exaggerated 

 from the standpoint of generahzation their observation has remained 

 sterile. On the other hand, if one wishes to hold the text of these 

 authors to strict accountabiUty and to take their statements Uterally 



