.\( Toi.Ysis OF ii.\("n:ni.\ 110 



autolysis of cliolcra vibrios sncccssi'uily in the j)i'0(hicti()i) of iiniiiu- 

 iiity, and states tliat the i)ro(lu('ts of autolysis consist larfi;('ly of nu- 

 c'leins. 



It is ])i'ol)al)l(' tliat in cvciy culture jjactcria arc couslantly Ijcinfj 

 destroyed, eitlier by their own enzymes or by tlie proteolytic enzymes 

 of the other bacteria. Some bacteria are much more rapidly auto- 

 lyzed tliau others, cholera vibrios, colon, typhoid, and dysentery 

 bacilli being rapidly di<iested, while sti'cptococci, staphylococci and 

 tubercle bacilli are very little and slowly autolyzed. In p:emn-al, the 

 Gram-positive organisms resist autolysis longest. 



Conradi,'^*' who has shown that certain products of autolysis of tis- 

 sues are bactericidal, believes that also in cultures powerfully bacteri- 

 cidal substances are produced through autolysis of the bacteria. This, 

 he tliinks, accounts for the decrease in numbers of living bacteria that 

 always sets in after a short period of growth on artificial media; but 

 there is much doubt as to these substances being of any considerable 

 importance in the body."^ It has been found by Turro '''^ that ex- 

 tracts from various tissues containing autolytic enzymes can digest 

 bacterial cells.**^ It is very possible that the endotoxins contained 

 Avithin such pathogenic bacteria as typhoid and cholera are liberated 

 through digestion of the bacteria, either by autolysis or b.v the en- 

 zymes of the leucocytes and tissues of the organism that they have 

 infected. These, and a number of other bacteria, produce no soluble 

 toxins that dififuse from the cells as do diphtheria and tetanus toxin, 

 and it is difficult to explain the toxic effects these bacteria produce 

 without assuming that their intracellular toxins are liberated in some 

 such way. It is also quite probable that the enzymes found in fil- 

 trates from bacterial cultures are liberated from the bacterial cells 

 only when these have been autolyzed. '■° "With the possible exception . 

 just mentioned, there is little evidence that the bacterial enzymes 

 play any important role in infectious diseases. They may be a slight 

 factor in the digestion of tissue and exudates in suppuration, but as 

 compared with the leucocytic enzymes their influence is probably mi- 

 nute; beyond this they have no apparent influence upon their host, 

 and are chiefly concerned in the metabolism of the bacteria. The 

 proteoses and peptones produced by bacterial action and isolated 



«oMiineh. med. Wochenschr., 1905 (r)2), 1761. 



67 See Eiikman, Cent. f. Bakt., 1906 (41), 31)7: Passini, Wieii. klin. Wopli., 

 1906 (19), 627. 



08 Cent. f. Bakt., 1902 (.32), 105. 



'!« Sigwart ( Arl). a. d. Path. Inst. Tiibingen, 1902 (3), 277) found tliat trypsin 

 and pepsin (without acid) do not injure living anthrax baeilli. 



70 Emmerich and Lrew (Zeitsclir. ' f. ITyg., 1899 (31), 1), having found that 

 pyoci/anase is capable of destroying and digesting otiier bacteria tlian pyocy- 

 aneus, suggested that it might be a potent factor in producing artificial immu- 

 nity. Their rather remarkable liypotheses I'ave been much contested, and are 

 of questionable value. (See Petr'ie, .Jour, of Pathol, and Bacteriol., 1903 (8), 

 200; also, Rettger (Jour. Infectious Diseases, 1905 (2), 562); Emmerich 

 Miinch. med. Woch., 1907 (54), 2217). 



