242 A SYMPOSIUM ON RESPIRATORY ENZYMES 



terials in these tissues and, I must add, also in the tumors taken 

 for comparison! I know of no normal tissue whose metabolism, fully 

 regarded, need as yet be confused with that of malignant tumors.* 

 Further background for the foregoing interpretation of quite recent 

 data is detailed elsewhere (3, 4, 5). 



Growing Liver 



One type of homologous tissue has been presented, but it might 

 still be argued that the normal liver, although homologous, was not 

 a growing tissue and not as comparable with liver tumor as might 



* I may reiterate a statement I have already made on many occasions, namely, 

 that I believe that tlie metabolic diagnosis of malignant tumor as compared with 

 normal tissue may be correlated with pathologic diagnosis in well over 95 per 

 cent of tested cases (and, I venture to say, as yet untested cases), upon due 

 consideration of the absolute as well as the relative magnitudes of, first and fore- 

 most, anaerobic glycolysis (8-20 ± ) and of respiratory quotient (0.75 - 0.9 ± ) ; 

 secondly, respiration (2 - 10 ± ), and aerobic glycolysis (0 - 15 ±); and 

 thirdly the derived quotients, absolute Pasteur effect (8 - 15 ± ), Meyerhof 

 oxidation quotient (M.O.Q. ) (3-6 ±), fermentation excess (U) ( — 5 to + 

 25 ± ) etc., (Q values based on initial dry weights); and fourthly quite possibly 

 the new criterion developed by Salter et al. (15) in regard to separation of 

 certain tumors from their homologues on the basis of differential oxidation of 

 glucose and succinate. Non-tumor tissues can be excluded from malignant tumor 

 tissue designation by one or more of these metabolic criteria; thus, to consider 

 previously debated cases: for the kidney medulla, too high an R.Q.; cartilage, 

 synovial membrane, and (presumably) skin epithelium, too low an anaerobic 

 glycolysis ( Q^^a ) or respiration ( Q02 ) even with reasonable correction for inter- 

 cellular substance and inert components; retina and jejunal mucosa, too high 

 a respiration and in tlie latter case also M.O.Q. =: (no Pasteur effect). 



The recent discussion, pro or con ( Ic, Id, 7, 2, lb, 8b), and emphasis laid, 

 on aerobic glycolysis would in my opinion be much better transferred to anaero- 

 bic glycolysis, which without exception, to my knowledge, is always considerable 

 in malignant tumors. From my point of view aerobic glycolysis is almost in- 

 variably merely an expression ( consequence ) of how much anaerobic glycolysis 

 goes on in relation to how much oxygen consumption is occurring in tlie par- 

 ticular tissue under examination (3b, 4). In malignant tumors for example, it 

 can be said that the anaerobic glycolysis values are so high relative to the respira- 

 tion that the latter is unable to inhibit completely the glycolysis under aerobic 

 conditions, even with extensive operation of the Pasteur effect ( M.O.Q. = 3 — 6) 

 ( 5 ) ; tlie aerobic glycolysis thus resulting is a quantity dependent upon two rather 

 independent functions, oxygen consumption and anaerobic glycolysis. I might 

 add, parenthetically, that most of the aerobic glycolysis values reported as zero 

 in the literature ( including the often quoted mouse data of Murphy and Hawk- 

 ins ) are in fact definitely positive due to a methodological error of not correcting 

 the calculations for the fact that the R.Q. is ordinarily definitely less than unity, 

 and hence the aerobic glycolysis greater than otherwise calculated. Unfortunately 

 I cannot go here more deeply into details of elaboration needed to treat adequately 

 the subjects discussed in this footnote and the two sentences tliat gave rise to it, 

 but shall do so when the butter yellow tumor data summarized in Table 1 are 

 described at length. 



