ebook img

Ergebnisse der Mikrobiologie, Immunitätsforschung und experimentellen Therapie: Fortsetzung der Ergebnisse der Hygiene, Bakteriologie, Immunitätsforschung und experimentellen Therapie PDF

355 Pages·1957·14.4 MB·English
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Ergebnisse der Mikrobiologie, Immunitätsforschung und experimentellen Therapie: Fortsetzung der Ergebnisse der Hygiene, Bakteriologie, Immunitätsforschung und experimentellen Therapie

ERGEBNISSE DER MIKROBIOLOGIE IMMUNITATSFORSCHUNG UND EXPERIMENTELLEN THERAPIE FORTSETZUNG DER ERGEBNISSE DER HYGIENE, BAKTERIOLOGIE,IMMUNITÄTSFORSCHUNG UND EXPERIMENTELLEN THERAPIE HERAUSGEGEBEN VON w. KIKUTH K. F. MEYER E. G. NAUCK OOSSELOORF SAN FRANCISCO HAMBURG A.M. PAPPENHEIMER ]R. J. TOMCSIK NEW YORK BASEL DREISSIGSTER BAND MIT 63 ABBILDUNGEN SPRINGER-VERLAG BERLIN HEIDELBERG GMBH 1957 ISBN 978-3-662-23733-5 ISBN 978-3-662-25832-3 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-25832-3 Alle Rechte, insbesondere das der t!bersetzung in fremde Sprachen, vorbehalten Ohne ausdriickliche Genehmigung des Verlages ist es auch nicht gestattet, dieses Buch oder Teile daraus auf photomechanischem Wege (Photokopie, Mikrokopie) zu vervielfăltigen © by Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1957 Urspriinglich erschienen bei Springer-Verlag OHG. Berlin· Giittingen · Heidelberg 1957 Die Wiedergabe von Gebrauchsnamen, Handelsnamen, Warenbezeichnungen usw. in diesem Werk berechtigt auch ohne besondere Kennzeichnung nicht zu der Annahme, daB solche Namen im Sinn der Warenzeichen- und Markenschutz-Gesetzgebung als frei zu betrachten wâren und daher von jedermann benutzt werden diirften Inhaltsverzeichnis Seite I. BISSET, Dr. K. A., Birmingham. Multicellularity in Bacteria. With 11 figures and 2 plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 11. PIJPER, Professor Dr. ADRIANUS, Pretoria. Bacterial flagella and motility. With 38 figures . . . . . . . . 37 III. BRANDIS, Privatdozent Dr. HENNING, Frankfurt a. M. Die Anwendung von Phagen in der bakteriologischen Diagnostik mit besonderer Berück- sichtigung der Typisierung von Typhus- und Paratyphus B-Bakterien sowie Staphylokokken. Mit 10 Abbildungen . . . . . . . . . . . 96 IV. KAUFFMANN, Dr. F., Kopenhagen. Das Kauffmann-White-Schema 160 V. WELSCH, Professor Dr. MAURICE, Liege. Activites Bacteriolytiques des Microorganismes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 VI. RUSKA, Professor Dr. HELMUT, Albany (N. Y.). Die Bakteriencytologie im Vergleich zum Feinbau höher differenzierter Zellen . . . . . . 280 VII. HENNEssEN, Dr. WALTER, Düsseldorf. Die serologische Diagnostik der Viruserkrankungen des Menschen. Mit 2 Abbildungen. 288 Namen verzei chnis 317 Sachverzeichnis. 338 I. Multicellularity in Bacteria By K.A.BISSET With 11 figures and 2 plates Contents Page 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Organisation of the bacterial cell 7 3. The composition of the cell envelopes 13 4. Fission and cell division ..... . 1$ 5. Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6. Multicellularity in relation to the systematics of bacteria 26 7. Summary 31 8. References . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . 33 1. Introduction Advance in the study and understanding of the morphology and structure of bacteria has been remarkably rapid in recent years. At the same time, it has been, in a number of respects, exceedingly irregular. This irregularity has manifested itself in diverse ways, although it certaillly cannot be held to betoken any lack of general and widespread interest. For example, the degree to which the more fully-accepted facts in the contemporary canon of knowledge on the subject are understood is very different indeed in different cultural spheres. Whereas, as might be anticipated, information of applied value, and especially that of medical interest, is much more equably distributed. A different type of irregularity in the distribution of information upon the various aspects of bacterial cytology has an important bearing upon the subject of this review. This is the rather remarkable discrepancy between the speed at which information has spread and been assimilated, as between the different aspects of investigation upon the problems of bacterial cytology, and between the manner in which the information available upon different cellular com- ponents has been accepted. The enormous preponderance of work has been done upon the bacterial nucleus, and many, if by no means all the important advances which have been made in this field are reasonably weIl known. And although considerably less time and energy have been expended upon the flagella, much of what has been discovered has been fully recognised by the majority of those interested. The subject of what, for lack of a better term, may be called 'granular inclusions' in the bacterial cell, has also received a great deal of attention, but, as will appear in the later part of this introductory section, much of this work can onIy, howsoever reluctantly, be regarded as wasted; for a reason, not uncommon in science, that the investigators in question have sometimes failed to examine the premises of their arguments. Ergebnisse der Mikrobiologie, Bd. 30 1 2 K. A. BISSET: It may be that the attention which the foregoing problems have received is due, at least in part, to the fact that all of them have been the subject of controversies of a more or less violent nature. On the other hand, the one major field in bacteriology which has not proved at all controversial in itself, at least so far, has singularly failed to attract a similar degree of attention. However, if controversy is indeed the best form of advertisement in science, the problem of cellular structure in bacteria is not without hope of attaining notoriety. Not because any real disagreement seems likely to a,rise among those who have studied the matter, but because its proper understanding has a most important bearing upon most, Ü not all, of those controversies concerning the bacterial nucleus, flagella and granular inclusions, to which reference has already been made. This will appear later, from reference to Text-fig. l. It is a remarkable fact that although the existence of multicellular organi- sation in bacteria has been known for the greater part of that period of a hundred years which comprises the epoch of scientific bacteriology, it has never been understood, nor indeed so much as recognised by the majority of bacteriologists. It is now ten years since ROBINOW (81) published his remarkable testament of bacterial cytology, and by his action advanced general knowledge both of the nucleus and cellular structure of bacteria to a greater degree than has been achieved by any single publication before or since. But despite the very large number of papers dealing with problems in connection with the morphology, complexity, growth and composition of the cell envelopes of bacteria which has appeared since that date, many bacteriologiflts, even including a surprisingly high proportion of those actually engaged in the study of cytology, persist in treating bacteria as single cells, and in referring to them as such. This does not apply only to those bacteria that, from lack of positive in- formation to the contrary, may be regarded as single cells, either on the principle of choosing the simpler of two alternatives, or by analogy with known, uni- cellular genera, to which the bacteria under discussion may bear some real or fancied resemblance. It is also true of those genera, including most, if not all Gram-positives, the evidence for whose multicellular nature is beyond all dispute. No better example than this could be found of the well-known principle that most observers, scientüic or otherwise, see only what they expect to see. Or more explicitly, what they have been taught to expect to see. For if once familiarity with the concept has been gained, the division of, for example, a staphylococcus into two or four cells can easily be discerned in a Gram-stained preparation with a scholastic oil-immersion lens. Despite which, generations of bacteriologists have trained their successors toregardit as an undifferentiated sphere. The amount of work which has been done upon the basis of this fallacious premise ha.s automatically given rise to what can only be termed avested interest in the traditional, unicellular concept. This is the sort of situation which occurs in all branches of science, and will doubtless continue to do so. In the present case, it is obvious that where the supporters of a particular school of thought have staked their professional reputations upon some interpretation founded upon the dogma that a bacterium is a single rod-shaped cell, they will tend to regard without enthusiasm the suggestion that many bacteria are, in fact, filaments of smaller cells, separated by cross-walls. Multicellularity in Bacteria 3 This is peculiarly true of those workers who rely too exclusively upon the electron microscope. This apparatus has provided some valuable information concerning the surface structures of bacteria, and especially concerning the flagella, but it is liable to provide a misleadingly convincing picture of uni- cellularity in bacteria which can clearly be seen, by the use of suitable cyto- logical techniques with the classical light microscope, to be markedly multi- cellular. It must be admitted that, upon occasion, internal cell boundaries can be discerned in disrupted cells by this means [ANGELICO etal. (1), DAWSON and STERN (38), YOSHIDA, FUKUYA et al. (106)] but even in such cases it is a matter for question whether more than a small proportion of these structures can actually be rendered visible. Comparative studies by light and electron microscopy suggest that they cannot [BISSET (23)]. Too exclusive a reliance upon any single technique, not only upon the electron microscope, can lead to errors and misconceptions, especially if this narrow approach is to some degree guided by a preconceived view of the objective. It is axiomatic that a scientific hypothesis should be designed to explain observed facts, and that subsequent research should be designed to test the hypothesis. But it would be idle to pretend that these rules are invariably followed. It has happened repeatedly in bacterial cytology that workers employing a single tech- nique, or a group of techniques directed to a single purpose, have promulgated some rash interpretation, usually by analogy with other types of cell, and have then expended much subsequent time and eHort in the design of experiments intended, not so much to test their hypotheses as to protect them against incon- venient facts adduced from other sources by other workers. An excellent example of the spirited defence of an elegant theory against intrusive and incompatible evidence is given by HUNTER (56). This example is of peculiar interest in the present context, since, as in so many parallel cases, the original flaw in the theory of nuclear structure proposed by this worker and her collaborators was that the Gram-positive coccus under examination proved not to be a single cell, as was essential to the validity of the theory, but a complex of several cells, divided by septa [BISSET (19)]. Although this muIticellularity in cocci has since been verified by a variety of methods [WEBB and CLARK (101), TOMCSIK and GRAC (92)], HUNTER has attempted to obviate this criticism of her work by demon- strating that it is possible so to stain the coccus in question that its cross-walls are not revealed. It is fair to comment that by exactly comparable means it has been proved repeatedly that bacteria are devoid of an organised nucleus! FaiIing to demonstrate the cytological structures of the bacterial cell presents no difficulties; the problem is to avoid such failure. Even in the limited field of the cocci a number of further examples can be found of theories of nuclear behaviour which are destined to make shipwreck on the selfsame rock. One of these is that of KRIEG (61), who manifestly mistakes entire cells, stained with fluorescent dyes, for nuclei in a septate coccus which he assumes, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, to be unicellular. Once more, too exclusive a reliance upon a single technique has proved dangerous. The :r:arallel application of a cell wall stain, a relatively simple matter in the case of most cocci, would have supported or disproved KRIEG'S ideas (Plate I, Fig.8). 1* 4 K. A. BISSET: The examples just quoted illustrate how, in the absence of an understanding of the multicellular character which is typical of the majority of Gram-positive and some Gram-negative bacteria, errors may arise from failure to realise that all the components visible in a single coccus or bacillus may not be, indeed almost certainly are not, parts of a single ceH, but usually belong to several different cells, and may comprise the major portions of small cells. This mis- conception has led especially to errors in interpretation of the nuclear behaviour of bacteria, but turns up also in the 'diagnostic' staining of bacteria [cf. BISSET (11)]. A second, parallel error arising from the same source, consists in the mistaking of elements which are actually derived from the cell envelopes for internal structures lying within the cello This occurs in studies both of cocci and bacilli, but especially the latter. The septa and cross-waUs which subdivide the multi. cellular bacteria may possess, or be associated with elements containing con- siderable components of nucleic acids. These are capable of combining with a variety of different types of basic dye, and frequently the most obvious structures demonstrable in this fashion are the granules at the junction of the cell wall or membrane and the developing cross-walls. These are clearly shown in the illustrations of many reliable cytologists, as for example KNAYSI (60), JÄRVI and LEVANTO (58), and ROBINOW and MURRAY (82). The simple and straightforward interpretations of these authors, with which the present writer entirely concurs, are shown in Text-fig. 1 (a, b, cl. Also in Text-fig. 1 are shown some of the numerous alternative inter- pretations which have been made, by different authorities, to explain what are, beyond any reasonable doubt, the same structures. And it is quite obvious, not only that many of these are incompatible with the interpretation which has already been mentioned, and which is almost certainly the true one, but that they are also incompatible one with another. Indeed, in some cases, as will be ob .. served, two or more interpretations proposed by the same author or authors may be in themselves mutually contradictory. The internal contradictions appear mainly to be due to a type of uncritical reliance upon a single technical method, supposed, often enough manifestly erroneously, to be specific for some particular element of the cello Portions of the bacterial cell envelopes are capable of being stained by techniques stated by various authorities to be reliable methods of distinguishing, for example, nuclei, mitochondria, fat globules, and even reticulo- cytes [BISSET (17)]. The first three interpretations shown in Text-fig. 1, those of KNAYSI, JÄRVI and LEVANTO, and ROBINOW and MURRAY, have already been referred to. That of DELAMATER and MUDD (40) is shown only diagrammaticaHy here (d). In the various figures published by these authors, the 'centrioles' which they claimed to demonstrate lie always in one or another of the sites illustrated in the figure; either on the mid-line at the poles of the bacillus, or in the comparable position on the complete cross-wall which represents the forthcoming fission of the bacillus in the centre; or more commonly at the junction of the cell wall and the cross-walls. Stained by a different method, the material surrounding the cross-wall was equated with mitochondria (e) by MUDD and WINTERSHEID (73). On the other hand McGREGOR (67), while agreeing with the previous workers in their inter- Multicellularity in Bacteria 5 (a) KNAYSI (1930) (: 11~ : ) (b) JÄRVI and LEVANTO (1949) Development of cell envelopes GD (c) ROBINOW and MURRAY (1952) (=:]11 : ~ (d) D (1E9L5A1M) ATER and MUDD €: : : ) Centrioles (e) (M1U95D3D) and WINTERSHEID ( 1I1 ) Mitochondria (f) MOGREGOR (1954) r.... ~Nuclei ~ • 7--- Centrioles -------- (g) CHAPMAN and HILLIER (1953) 0 '---...J\._ ___ Developing septa (h) MUDD (1953) .f------\-b Mitochondria (i) DAVIS and MUDD (1953) • I~NuclMeitioch ondria Foci for: (j) WEIBULL (1953) • ~ • ~ Redox reagent., =- (k) BISSET (1953) I Intrinsic and Extrinsie DNA (I) BISSET (1954) ~ ~ ~evel~Ping septa (m) DELAMATER (1954) ~ _ CentrlOles Mitoehondria (0) f)~~; ""' G",,-H"~" (:::JlCY Development of eapsular septa Areas of acti ve growth. Serve as foei, and stain with a wide (0) Summary of evidenee, to date -.·:.:-:-1.·. . :-1::::.1::.:_ range of supposedly speeifie eyto- ehemieal reagen ts Text-fig. 1. Interpretations from baeterial cell envelopes. The figure shows diagrammatieally the basophilic areas and granules which are commonly found at the points of cell division in septate baeteria, and the very diverse interpretations whieh have been based upon these appearanees. Some of these, for example a, b, c, g, i, k, I, n, are sound and mutually corroborative. Others are, for the most part, fanciful and mutually exelusive. Diseussion in text pretation of the granules at the poles of the cell as centrioles, chose to regard those surrounding the cross-wall as nuclei rather than as mitochondria or further centrioles (f). Ergebnisse der Mikrobiologie, Bd. 30 la 6 K. A. BISSET: A great deal of valuable information concerning the bacterial cell envelopes has been obtained from the remarkable and beautiful electron micrographs of ultra-thin sections produced by CHAPMAN and HILLIER (35). These authors inter- preted their results (g) in terms very closely comparable with those of KNAYSI, JÄRVI and LEVANTO, and ROBINowand MURRAY, with certain exceptions which will be discussed in a later section. But MUDD (71), describing exactly the same material, (h), on ce more chose to interpret as mitochondria the elements of developing cross-walls which CHAPMAN and HILLIER, in accordance with the con- sensus of reliable opinion on the subject, had clearly described as cell-envelope material. DAVIS and MUDD (37) reserved the title of mitochondria for the sm aller elements at the poles of the bacillus, and at the junction of cell wall and cross- walls, (i). The larger masses, disposed around the central cross-wall, they de- scribed as nuclei. These protagonists of bacterial mitochondria were attacked by WEIBULL (102), who showed that the supposedly specific reagents, which they used for their demonstrations, formed granular aggregations in exactly the same sites, (j). And this observation was paralleled by those of BISSET (17, 18) who showed firstly that stainable materials with the reactions of DNA tended to become transferred from the nucleus, and possibly also from the cytoplasm of bacteria, under the influence of cytological techniques, and to form aggregates at the poles and cross-walls, (k). Secondly, he showed that DNA of extrinsic origin, derived in this case from herring-roe, when brought into physical contact with similar bacteria, appeared in the form of clusters of small granules at exactly the same places, and that some of these artifacts very closely simulated the types of controversial cytological elements with which this section is con- cerned (l). More recently DELAMATER (39) simultaneously described different portions of the polar and cross-wall elements as mitochondria and centrioles, in accordance with his previous views, and also as developing septa, in accordance with the criticisms of those of his opponents who had pointed out that this was, Itlmost certainly, the true nature of his 'mitochondria' and 'centrioles', previously described, (m). This confusion is commented upon by MARSHAK (66), who points out the dubiety of claims to draw important distinctions on the ground that these tiny granules stain in different shades of purple. A further vindication of the views illustrated in a, band c was provided by TOMCSIK and GUEx-HoLZER (96), who showed that those areas which were regarded by the authorities previously quoted and by BISSET (17, 21) as the areas of growth of the cell envelopes, are certainly the areas in which the main growth of the capsule occurs, (n). And since the conclusions of TOMCSIK and GUEx-HoLZER were derived, not from stained and fixed preparations, with all the limitations which these conditions imply (as can be seen quite clearly from the discrepant views recorded in the diagram), but from the examination by phase-contrast microscopy of living bacteria treated with antibodies, the support which they provide is peculiarly valuable. The final diagram (0) summarises what is really known about these areas in the developing, multicellular bacillus, and enables a distinction to be drawn between reasonable theories, supported by mutually corroborative evidence, and pure speculation, often mutually contradictory in a high degree, and supported only by analogy. These basophilic 'granules' are believed to correspond with the divisions between the cells of a multicellular rod, and mark the areas of growth

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.