488 JACOB ROSENBLOOM 



Bence-Jones' protein, however, and must be sharply distinguished from 

 the latter. Among the most prominent of these differences between Bence- 

 Jones' protein and ordinary proteoses, the following may be indicated in 

 the terms of Bence-Jones' protein : 



1. Soluble in water (different from heteroproteose). 



2. Coagulated at low temperature (unlike other proteose collectively), 

 through elastoses are precipitated by heating their aqueous solution but 

 redissolve as the temperature falls. 



3. Convertible into metaproteins (unlike other proteose collectively). 



4. Digested by pepsin-HCl, yields protoproteose (unlike all pro- 

 teoses). 



5. Not acted upon by erepsin (different from proteoses). 



6. Excreted in larger proportions than the proteoses. 



7. Does not dialyze through parchment paper (different from all solu- 

 ble proteoses). 



8. Not precipitated from saline solution by dialysis (different from 

 several proteoses). 



9. Capable of producing anaphylaxis. 



III. Theories Regarding the Origin and the Nature of 

 Bence-Jones' Protein 



Proteose Relationships. Kuehne believed that Bence-Jones' protein is 

 closely related to heteroproteose on account of the fact that the pure sub- 

 stance, after its precipitation from its solution by heating, redissolves with 

 further elevation of the temperature. Huppert also thinks the protein is 

 heteroproteose. Dechaunne considers it a mixture of at least three pro- 

 teins or groups of proteins, probably proto- and dysproteoses, and a sub- 

 stance like heteroproteose. Kuehne and Chittenden found that on the basis 

 of elementary composition, Bence-Jones' protein resembled heteroglobulose. 

 Neumeister showed that Bence-Jones' protein is not heteroproteose. He 

 did not believe that there is any relation between digestive conditions and 

 the presence of this substance in the urine. He thought rather, that it is 

 a substance of a peculiar kind and quite unlike any other that had 

 hitherto been described. Matthes was of the same opinion as Neumeister. 



Possible Derivation from Blood Proteins. Simon thinks Bence-Jones' 

 protein is formed from the serum globulins, perhaps by an enzymotic 

 action of the tumor cells, and that once produced, it is rapidly excreted by 

 the kidneys as are all foreign proteins. Kuehne and Chittenden suggest 

 that it may arise from serum globulin. Coriat also thinks it might be 

 formed from serum globulin. He supposes it is produced by the digestive 

 action of leucocytes or bacteria, or, more particularly, by the enzymotic 

 action of plasma cells in the bone-marrow. Moitessier(a) (&) believed that 



