Kapronczay Károly szerk.: Orvostörténeti közlemények 230-233. (Budapest, 2015)
KÖZLEMÉNYEK - Elek Gábor—Müller Miklós: Bauer Ervin és a rákkutatás
92 Comm, de Hist. Artis Med. 230-233 (2015) development (Table A, row 4). Bauer’s principle plays a decisive role in all his models. For recent biological science his principle cannot regarded as a fundamental one. It is more correct to consider it as a method for constructing models in theoretical biology (Table A, row 3). If Bauer is to be recognised as a forerunner of the theoretical biology, this interpretation can best preserve the significance of his principle. The choice of the Ascaris model was unfortunate. Tributyrin does not even enter the Ascaris eggs whose shells are impermeable to water and compounds dissolved in it. The increase of cell division observed by Bauer was an unrecognised experimental error. Tributyrin, a mild antiseptic, inhibited bacterial growth in the medium; therefore more oxygen reached the eggs leading to faster division (ßaeadoecKuit 1926). This fact did not become widely known and did not affect Bauer’s reputation, but possibly the criticism prompted Bauer to repeat similar studies on plant seeds with his coworker, Tschukisheva. These tests confirmed that decrease of surface tension increases cell division (Bayap 1930 77-82). Tributyrin indeed increases the tempo of cell division in certain cells - those that contain in their membrane aquaporin, a protein regulating water transport - e.g. eggs of amphibians (see Lodish et al. 2000 609-611). Tributyrin also accelerated amphibian regeneration (Vej- narovd 1924) and growth (Krizenecky, see Heréik 1934 189-191). But the fundamental essence of Bauer’s contribution is that the living cell differs from nonliving models. It became more and more evident by the nineteen thirties that colloid chemical direction of physiology was not suitable to explain life phenomena. ‘ ...ifwe are really to come to an understanding of the colloid chemistry ofprotoplasm, we must seek to explain the colloidal changes of the living substances in terms of the colloid chemistry of inanimate materials. Probably this is as yet scarcely possible’ (Heilbrunn 1928 281). In the understanding of mechanical aspects of cell division Bauer’s thesis of ‘non-equilibrium’ fulfilled the role of theoretical biology: it led to a correct working hypothesis. We know now that an actomyosin ring constricts the cytoplasm of the dividing cell with use of ATP. Assembly of actin microfilaments gelifies sol state in the living organism’s cytoplasm, a process also dependent on ATP, e.g. locomotion of amoebae with pseudopodia (see Lodish et al. 2000 765, 789, 792; Lutkenhaus 2008). Locomotion requiring energy but based on other molecules (tubulin) are the movement of the cell centre and division spindle (see Lodish etal. 2000 517, 784-785, 823-836 and Table A, row 3). With his thesis Bauer became one of the first critic of the colloid chemical direction in physiology: he made a better model of cell division than the contemporary mechanical ones. All the same he remained within the framework of the colloid direction: he imagined the cell’s reproduction directed by a physical quantity (surface tension) that is largest after the cell division, and then diminishes. This contradiction disappears if we consider that Bauer’s criticism was always based on his thesis of permanent non-equilibrium. Bauer’s theoretical activity, however, did not stop at the explanation of cell division. He became preoccupied with questions of malignant growth (possibly because his father died of cancer). He tried to implicate surface tension in all aspects of the cancer problem. Such attitude is a typical aspiration of theoretical biology: to explain things with the least number necessary notions (deductive argument). Discussion of the cancer problem was not new to him: in his first monograph he specified this disease as the pathological error of physiological regeneration (Bauer 1920 71-74; see Elek-Müller 2006). Bauer’s thoughts about cancer are in the left column of Table B (Bauer 1923a), present opinions are in the right one.
