ENZYMES. 53 



SON and LEWIS 1 with the same results. On the other hand the cor- 

 rectness of these observations is disputed by BiERRY, 2 PLIMMER, S WOHL- 

 GEMUTH 4 and POPIELSKI 5 as they could not find any accommodation. 

 MENDEL 6 and his co-workers by careful investigations on certain enzymes 

 obtained from embryonal intestine and other embryonal tissues could 

 not find any marked difference between these enzymes and the enzymes 

 of the full grown animal. These results speak against the accepted influence 

 of the food and of the processes depending upon the taking up of food, 

 upon the formation of enzymes. Recently the investigations of LON- 

 DON 7 and his collaborators upon the influence of the food upon the 

 digestion juices have shown that the amount of juice secreted is dependent 

 upon the constitution of the food but not the ferment content of the 

 same. The observations of COHNHEIM 8 also speak against the view 

 that the kind and quantity of enzymes secreted in the intestinal tract 

 accommodate themselves to the digestion, as he found that the organism 

 secretes as much fluid (gastric juice, pancreatic juice and bile) when 

 already digested food is introduced into the stomach as when undigested 

 food is introduced. ARRHENITJS 9 has calculated from LONDON'S figures, 

 that the total amount of digestive juice secreted was proportional to the 

 quantity of food-stuffs. From experiments which EULER and his 

 collaborators have made upon the formation of inverting enzymes he 

 concludes that we have inverting enzymes whose formation is specific 

 by getting accustomed to the substrate, while the formation of others 

 is in no wise thus influenced. 10 







In this connection we will call -attention to the appearance of enzy- 

 motic substances in the blood after the subcutaneous or intravenous 

 (parenteral) introduction of certain food-stuffs. WEINLAND first showed 

 that the parenteral introduction of cane-sugar caused the appearance 

 in the serum of a cane-sugar splitting enzyme. 11 ABDERHALDEN and 

 KAPFBERGER 12 have substantiated and developed these observations. 

 Bodies having a similar action also appear after the injection of milk 



I Journ. of Biol. Chem., 4, 501 (1908). 

 2 Compt. rend. soc. biol., 58, 701 (1905). 



3 Journ. of PhysioL, 34, 93 (1906). 



4 Bioch. Zeitschr., 9, 1 (1908). 



5 Pfliiger's Arch., 127, 443 (1909). 



6 Amer. Journ. of PhysioL, 20, 81, 97 (1907); 21, 64, 69, 85, 95 (1908). 

 ' Zeitschr. f. physiol. Chem., 68, 366 (1910). 



8/6id, 84, 419 (1913). 



9 Ibid., 63, 323 (1909), see also London, ibid., 65, 189 (1910). 



">Ibid., 70, 279; 76, 388; 78, 246; 79, 274; 80, 241 (1912). 



II Zeitschr. f. Biol., 47, 279 (1905). 



12 Zeitschr. f. physiol. Chem., 69, 23 (1910). 



