SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CATALASES 561 



to de Waele and Vandevelde) nothing of the kind can be 

 recognized either in normal serum or in the serum after 

 immunization by the ordinary methods employed in immun- 

 ology. 10 Battelli and Stern also assume that the ability of 

 the serum and of extracts of many tissues to prevent the de- 

 structive effect of "anticatalase" upon catalase to be due 

 to a special substance, philo catalase. Activation of the 

 "philocatalase," again, is held as the function of another 

 special material, the "activator of philo catalase." It may 

 be remarked in connection with a terminology of this sort 

 that a union of complicated physical-chemical factors 

 can be thought of as possibly combining to bring about 

 the effects which are characterized by the words "cata- 

 lase, anticatalase, philocatalase and activator of catalase.'' 

 If the purpose be to employ some such terms for the un- 

 known summation of this sort of manifestations of energy 

 by undefined physical-chemical factors, there is, of course, 

 no objection to be made; but there is no reason as yet for 

 the idea, as far as the author sees, that we are necessarily 

 dealing here with ' ' special substances. ' ' 



In connection with other investigations in reference to 

 the significance of catalase action, the suggestion that these 

 substances are somehow concerned in the conversion of fat ll 

 is quite unproven. In contradiction to the assumption of 

 Low that the catalases are intended to protect the living cells 

 against the toxic action of the hydrogen peroxide supposed 

 to be produced in the processes of oxidation, Bach and Cho- 

 dat have brought forward the fact that this substance is not 

 especially toxic (quite a number of the lower plants thrive 

 very well in a one per cent, solution of peroxide of hydrogen) . 

 Although, again, others have suggested the belief that the 

 catalases supposedly are protective to the organism against 



10 H. de Waele and A. J. J. Vandevelde (Ghent), Biochem. Zeitschr., 9, 264, 

 1908. 



11 H. Euler (Stockholm), Hofmeister's Beitr., 7, 1, 1906. 

 36 



