Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T05:44:11.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Significance of the Mucoprotein Content on the Survival of Homografts of Cartilage and Cornea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2018

P. Bacsich  and
G. M. Wyburn
P. Bacsich
Affiliation:
Department of Anatomy, University of Glasgow.
G. M. Wyburn
Affiliation:
Department of Anatomy, University of Glasgow.
Get access

Extract

According to Borst (1913) each individual should be regarded as a specific biochemical system, and within this common background the different organs and tissues work together whilst preserving their own characteristics. On such a foundation, strengthened by the results of his own extensive experiments, Loeb (1930,1945) has built up his conception of the biological basis of individuality. According to his thesis the individuality of a tissue is a summation and integration of qualities in respect of its identity as a particular tissue or organ, in respect of the organism of which it is a part, and in respect of the species and order of this organism. The autograft is attuned to the biochemical system of the organism and is therefore accepted as a transplant, but the host reacts to the homograft (and more so to the heterograft) and makes an effort to destroy it. While the extent of the host reaction depends on many factors—e.g. genetical relationship, age of host and donor, etc.—the ability of different organs and tissues to survive as homografts varies considerably. It is, for example, well known that homografts of cartilage and cornea survive within the host long after homografts of other tissues and organs have been destroyed.

To regard the more prolonged survival of homografts of cartilage and cornea as evidence of low tissue specificity (Loeb, 1930, 1945) still leaves undetermined the real reason why these particular tissues are less readily overwhelmed by those of the host.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences , Volume 62 , Issue 3 , January 1945 , pp. 321 - 327
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1946

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

REFERENCES TO LITERATURE

Bacsich, P., and Riddell, W. J. B., 1945-46. Nature, CLV, 271.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, H. T., 1939. Arch. Path., XXVII, 510.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, H. T., 1941. Arch. Path., XXXI, 295.Google Scholar
Borst, M., 1913. Brit. Med. Journ., 11, 383.Google Scholar
Burkantz, S. C., Gara, P. F., and Bullowa, J., 1942. Arch. Int. Med., LXIX, 191.Google Scholar
CASTROVIEJO, R., and Elliot, A. J., 1942. Arch. Ophth., XXVII, 899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chain, E., and Duthie, E. S., 1940. Brit. Journ. Exp. Path., XXI, 324.Google Scholar
Cole, R. I., 1917. Journ. Exp. Med., xxvi, 453.Google Scholar
Downie, A. W., 1937. Journ. Path, and Bact., XLV, 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duran-Reynals, F., 1929. Journ. Exp. Med., L, 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ercoli, N., Lewis, M. N., and Harker, E., 1945-46. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol, and Med., LIX, No. 2, 273.Google Scholar
Fleisher, M. S., 1920. Journ. Med. Res., XXXIV, 1.Google Scholar
Gibson, T., and Medawar, P. B., 1943. Journ, Anat, LXXVII, 4, 299.Google Scholar
Godin, K. L., 1939. Zeits. f. Immunitats Forsch., XCVI, 320.Google Scholar
Hempelmann, L. H., 1940. Anat. Rec., LXXVIII, No. 2, 197.Google Scholar
Hippel A., von, 1888. Arch. Ophth., Pt. I, XXXIV, 108.Google Scholar
Keefer, C. S., and Spink, W. W., 1938. Journ. Clin. Invest, XVII, 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loeb, L., 1926. Amer. Journ. Path., II, 111.Google Scholar
Loeb, L., 1930. Physiol. Rev., X, 547.Google Scholar
Loeb, L., 1945-46. The Biological Basis of Individuality, C. Thomas, Baltimore.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lythgoe, B., and Madinaveitia, J., 1943. Journ. Biochem., XXXVII, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClean, D., 1936. Journ. Path, and Bact., XLII, 477.Google Scholar
McLeod, Charlotte, 1941. Amer. Journ. Hygiene, XXXIV, 41.Google Scholar
Madinaveitia, J., and Stacey, M., 1944. Journ. Biochem., XXXVIII, 413.Google Scholar
Medawar, P. B., 1944. Journ. Anat., LXXVIII, 5, 176.Google Scholar
Medawar, P. B., 1945-46. Journ. Anat., LXXIX, 4, 157.Google Scholar
Meyer, K., and Chaffee, E., 1940. Amer. Journ. Ophth., Ser. 3, XXIII, 1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, K., and Chaffee, E., 1940. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol., XLIII, 487.Google Scholar
Miller, C. P., and Castles, R., 1936. Journ. Inf. Dis., LVIII, 263.Google Scholar
Mowlem, R., 1941. Brit. Journ. Surg., XXIX, 182.Google Scholar
Nungster, W. J., Jourdonais, L. F., and Wolf, A. H., 1936. Journ. Inf. Dis., LIX, 11.Google Scholar
Ollier, L. J., 1867. Traité experimental de la regeneration des os et de la production artificielle detissus osseux, Paris.Google Scholar
Peer, L., 1938. Arch. Otolaryngol., XXVII, 42.Google Scholar
Peer, L., 1939. Surg. Gynecol, and Obst., LXVIII, 603.Google Scholar
Reisinger, F., 1824. Cited by Kuhnt, H., in Augenarztliche Operationslehre, I, 515, Berlin, 1922.Google Scholar
Sellerbeck, E., 1878. Arch. f. Ophth., XXIV, 321.Google Scholar
Speman, H., 1938. Embryonic Development and Induction, Oxford Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tunnicliff, R., 1940. Journ. Inf. Dis., LXVI, 189.Google Scholar
Woglom, W. H., 1929. Cancer Rev., IV, 129.Google Scholar
Woglom, W. H., and Eisen, M. J., 1941. Cancer Res., I, 629.Google Scholar
Wolfe, J. R., 1880. Brit. Med. Journ., II, 780.Google Scholar