Classics of modern science : $b (Copernicus to Pasteur)
History
Classics of modern science : $b (Copernicus to Pasteur)
Science; Science -- History
The next point which can be proved is, that this power is an attribute
of the cells themselves, and that the cytoblastema is passive under
it. We may mention vinous fermentation as an instance of this. A
decoction of malt will remain for a long time unchanged; but as soon as
some yeast is added to it, which consists partly of entire fungi and
partly of a number of single cells, the chemical change immediately
ensues. Here the decoction of malt is the cytoblastema; the cells
clearly exhibit activity, the cytoblastema, in this instance even a
boiled fluid, being quite passive during the change. The same occurs
when any simple cells, as the spores of the lower plants, are sown in
boiled substances.
In the cells themselves again, it appears to be the solid parts, the
cell-membrane and the nucleus, which produce the change. The contents
of the cell undergo similar and even more various changes than the
external the cytoblastema, and it is at least probable that these
changes originate with the solid parts composing the cells, especially
the cell-membrane, because the secondary deposits are formed on
the inner surface of the cell-membrane, and other precipitates are
generally formed in the first instance around the nucleus. It may
therefore, on the whole, be said that the solid component particles of
the cells possess the power of chemically altering the substances in
contact with them.
The substances which result from the transformation of the contents
of the cell are different from those which are produced by change
in the external cytoblastema. What is the cause of this difference,
if the metamorphosing power of the cell-membrane be limited to its
immediate neighbourhood merely? Might we not much rather expect that
converted substance would be found without distinction on the inner
as on the outer surface of the cell-membrane? It might be said that
the cell-membrane converts the substance in contact with it without
distinction, and that the variety in the products of this conversion
depends only upon a difference between the convertible substance
contained in the cell and the external cytoblastema. But the question
then arises, as to how it happens that the contents of the cell differ
from the external cytoblastema. If it be true that the cell-membrane,
which at first closely surrounds the nucleus, expands in the course of
its growth, so as to leave an interspace between it and the cell, and
that the contents of the cell consist of fluid which has entered this
space merely by imbibition, they cannot differ essentially from the
external cytoblastema. I think therefore that, in order to explain the
distinction between the cell-contents and the external cytoblastema,
we must ascribe to the cell-membrane not only the power in general of
chemically altering the substances which it is either in contact with,
or has imbibed, but also of so separating them that certain substances
appear on its inner, and others on its outer surface. The secretion of
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account