Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T02:10:07.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On the Enzymes of certain Dermatophytes, or Ringworm Fungi

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

P. Tate
Affiliation:
(From the Molteno Institute for Research in Parasitology, University of Cambridge.)

Extract

1. The enzymic activity was studied in the following Dermatophyte fungi: Sabouraudites radiolatus; S. lanosus; S. audouini; Trichophyton tonsurans; Grubyella schoenleinii. Both the normal and pleomorphic forms of S. radiolatus were studied comparatively.

2. An active proteolytic enzyme is present in all the species. This enzyme is active in an alkaline medium and can hydrolyse intact proteins (casein) with the production of free amino-acids (tryptophane), and is very similar to trypsin in its behaviour.

3. Pepsin is not present in any of these fungi.

4. The amount of the proteolytic enzyme present varies in the different species, and it is particularly abundant in S. radiolatus.

5. A keratolytic enzyme was not found in any of these fungi.

6. A lipolytic enzyme, lipase, which readily splits tributyrin into fatty acids, is present in all the species. It is about equally strong in all of them.

7. Urease is present in all, with the exception of T. tonsurans.

8. None of them contains invertase, inulase, lactase or zymase.

9. Maltase and diastase are present in all. They are strongest in S. lanosus and T. tonsurans and are weakest in S. radiolatus.

10. The species with most proteolytic activity have least carbohydrases, and conversely.

11. Amygdalase is present in all the species.

12. The normal form of S. radiolatus has greater proteolytic activity than the pleomorphic form. The pleomorphic form has strong urease and amygdalase, both of which are very weak in the normal form. Otherwise the enzymic activity of the two forms is similar.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1929

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Avery, O. T. and Cullen, G. E. (1920). Studies on the Enzymes of Pneumococcus. II. Lipolytic Enzymes: Esterase. J. Exper. Med. 32, 571582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Avery, O. T. and Cullen, G. E. (1920 a). Studies on the Enzymes of Pneumococcus. III. Carbohydrate-Splitting Enzymes: Invertase, Amygdalase and Inulase. J. Exper. Med. 32, 583593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodin, E. (1899). Sur la Forme Oospora (Streptothrix) du Microsporum du cheval. Arch. de Parasitol. 2, 362376.Google Scholar
Bodin, E. (1902). Sur le Champignon du Favus de la Souris (Achorion Quinckeanum). Arch, de Parasitol. 5, 530.Google Scholar
Bodin, and Lenormand, (1901). Note sur la Production de Casease par une Streptothrix Parasite. Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 15, 279288.Google Scholar
Cole, S. W. (1920). Practical Physiological Chemistry. 6th ed.Cambridge: Heffer and Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
Grigoraki, L. (1925). Recherches sur les Dermatophytes. Ann. des Sci. nat. Bot. Sér. x, 7, 165444.Google Scholar
Grigoraki, L. (1927). Corps propagateurs et systématique des Dermatophytes du genre Spirallia (Trichophyton microides Sabouraud) ou Sabowraudites Langeron and Ota. C. R. Soc. Biol. 97, 760.Google Scholar
Keilin, D. (1927). Influence of Carbon Monoxide and Light on Indophenol Oxidase of Yeast Cells. Nature, 119, No. 3001, pp. 670671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macfayden, A. (1894). A Contribution to the Biology of the Ringworm Organism. J. Path. and Bact. 3, 177183.Google Scholar
Matruchot, L. and Dassonville, Ch. (1899). Sur le champignon de l'Herpès (Trichophyton) et les formes voisines, et sur la classification des Ascomycètes. Bull. Soc. Mycol. de France, 15, 240253.Google Scholar
Matruchot, L. and Dassonvtlle, Ch. (1900). Sur une forme de reproduction d'ordre élevé chez les Trichophyton. Bull. Soc. Mycol. de France, 16, 201208.Google Scholar
Matruchot, L. and Dassonvtlle, Ch. (1901). Eidamella spinosa, Dermatophyte produisant des périthèces. Bull. Soc. Mycol. de France, 17, 123132.Google Scholar
Nannizzi, A. (1926). Ricerche sui rapporti morfologici e biologici tra Gymnoascacee e Dermatomiceti. Ann. Mycologici, 24, 85129. (Also summarised in Bull. Inst. Pasteur, 25, 125–127.Google Scholar
Nannizzi, A. (1927). Ricerche sull' origine saprophytica dei funghi delle tigne. II. Gymnoascus gypseum sp.n. forma ascofera del Sabouraudites (Achorion) gypseum (Bodin) Ota and Langeron. (Nota preventiva.) Atti R. Acad. Fisiocritici Siena. Ser. 10, ii, 8997. (Reviewed in Rev. Applied Mycol. 7, 169.)Google Scholar
Neill, J. M. and Fleming, W. L. (1927). Studies in Bacterial Enzymes. IV. The Maltase and Lipase of the Botulinus Bacillus. J. Exper. Med. 45, 937946.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Onslow, M. W. (1923). Practical Plant Biochemistry. 2nd ed.Cambridge: The University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onslow, M. W. and Robinson, M. E. (1926), Oxidising Enzymes. IX. On the Mechanism of Plant Oxidases. Biochem. J. 20, 11381145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ota, M. and Langeron, M. (1923). Nouvelle Classification des Dermatophytes. Ann. de Parasit. Humaine el Comparée, 1, 305336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plimmek, R. H. A. (1920). Practical Organic and Biochemistry. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
Roberts, L. (1894). The Physiology of the Trichophytons. J. Path, and Bad. 3, 300309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, L. (1899). Experimental Note on the Ferments of the Ringworm Fungi. Brit. Med. J. 1, 1314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, M. E. (1924). A Comparison of Certain Oxidising Enzymes of the Higher and Lower Plants. Biochem. J. 18, 543548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sabouraud, A. (1910). Les Teignes. 1st ed.Paris: Masson et Cie.Google Scholar
Szent–Györgyi, A. (1925). Über den Oxydationsmechanismus der Kartoffeln. Biochem. Zeitschr. 162, 399412.Google Scholar
Tate, P. (1929). On the Dermatophytes or Ringworm Fungi. Biological Reviews. (In the press.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thom, C. and Church, M. B. (1926). The Aspergilli. London: Baillière, Tindall and Cox.Google Scholar
Verujsky, Dm. (1887). Recherches sur la Morphologic et la Biologie du Tricophyton tonsurans et de l' Achorion schoenleinii. Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 1, 369391.Google Scholar
Vuillemin, P. (1910). Matériaux pour une classification rationelle des Fungi imperfecti. C. R. Acad. des Sci. 150, 882.Google Scholar