The physiology of the carbohydrates : a reply to Dr Pavy's "Epicriticism" / by D. Noël Paton.

  • Paton, Diarmid Noël, 1859-1928.
Date:
1896
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The physiology of the carbohydrates : a reply to Dr Pavy's "Epicriticism" / by D. Noël Paton. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.

    11/16 (page 10)
    which is evidently what he too understood when his book was written. I have no doubt lie failed to see the significance of the note. It is unfortunate that the word “proteid” is used in two different senses,—as an equivalent for the group of albuminous bodies, and as a term for the products of the union of these with other materials, such as hsematin, nucleic acid, etc. It was for this reason I defined the sense in which it was used by us. If Dr Pavy simply contends for the formation of carbohydrates from the decomposition of such bodies as nucleo-proteids and mucin, every one will agree with him. But his previous conten- tion was that from albuminous bodies, such as egg albumin, fibrin, and the proteids of blood serum {Physiology of the Carbohydrates, p. 31) a carbohydrate is formed by cleavage, and this contention his “German confihre,” Dr Grube, has pointed out is not supported by Kossel’s work, since “ the carbohydrate did not come from the albuminous base (Eiweisskern), but from the associated group (prothetische Gruppe),” p. 35. But the question still remains : Was the albumin from which osazones were prepared by Dr Pavy free of carbohydrate bodies in mere mechanical union or loose chemical connexion, or was the carbohydrate an integral part of the molecule ? Schenck’s results, already considered, show that mixtures of carbohydrates with albuminous substances are formed, which may account for Dr Pavy’s results. But Dr Pavy refuses to consider these observations. As I said before, I do not deny that a carbohydrate may be yielded by the splitting of the proteid—the albuminous—molecule ; but I did say, and still maintain, that all that Dr Pavy has yet proved is that, in the solution of proteids by caustic potash or sulphuric acid, a carbohydrate substance, convertible into sugar, is set free, which was either loosely combined with the proteid or formed an integral part of its molecule. Until the work of Schenck has been satisfactorily dealt with, an open mind must be kept on the subject. Undoubtedly the fact that an increased amount of reducing substance is obtained by the use of stronger solution of potash favours his view. Evidence of Conversion of Carbohydrates to Eats in THE Intestinal Epithelium. Dr Pavy says of me (p. 4), “ That without adducing a particle of evidence derived from an experimental testing of my work, he instead has sat down, and simply through the medium of his pen attacked me on every side with statements drawn from the heterogeneous mass of writings extant.” How is this statement of Dr Pavy’s to be reconciled with the following (p. 131), when speaking of Dr Gulland’s and my experi- ments, undertaken to test his theory of the action of intestinal epithelium on carbohydrates ? “ As regards the experiments on