IS AUTOLYSIS AN INTRA- VITAL PROCESS? 79 



son of various organs Vernon found the duodenal mucous 

 membrane richest in erepsin, that of the lower portions of 

 the intestine poor in erepsin; of the other organs the kidney 

 showed the highest content of ferment. 



It can be readily appreciated that there is difficulty in 

 attempting to deal with all of the observations upon autolysis 

 as it were under one heading, because of the extreme com- 

 plexity of the chemical processes concerned. It may be re- 

 garded as a step in advance that E. L. Benson and H. G. 

 Wells 6 have perfected a physico-chemical method of follow- 

 ing continuously the course of autolysis by determining the 

 freezing-point and electrical conductivity of the autolysate, 

 in place of depending exclusively upon the increment of 

 incoagulable nitrogen or the disappearance of the biuret 

 reaction. 



The whole idea of the physiological significance of the 

 autolytic ferments is in close relation with the proposition 

 that increase in the " physiological activity " of an organ 

 is somehow related with increase of its intrinsic autolytic 

 capacity. Accepting provisionally the correctness of such 

 a statement, if we endeavor to satisfy ourselves as to the 

 actual basis thereof, it is astonishing to find upon how little 

 foundation of fact it rests. A few observations from Hof- 

 meister's laboratory bear upon the subject. That autolysis 

 in the tissues of children of low vitality proceeds more slowly 

 (measured by increase of incoagulable nitrogen) than in 

 those of normal individuals, 7 and that the autolytic activity 

 of a functionating mammary gland is higher than of a rest- 

 ing gland 8 (cf . Vol. I of this series, p. 361, Chemistry of the 

 Tissues) should be mentioned; and in addition a few of 

 Vernon 's observations 9 are applicable. According to this 

 author the average quantity of "erepsin" in a tissue is prac- 



6 R. L. Benson and H. G. Wells, Journ. of Biol. Chem., 8, 61, 1910. 

 7 E. Schlesinger (F. Hofmeister's Lab.), Hofmeister's Beitr., 4, 87, 1903. 

 8 P. Hildebrandt (F. Hofmeister's Lab.), Hofmeister's Beitr., 5, 463, 1904. 

 1. c. 



