Chica Schaller H
Department of Biophysics, Max-Planck-Institute for Medical Research, Jahnstrasse 29, 6900, Heidelberg, Federal Republic of Germany.
Department of Zoology, University of Heidelberg, Jahnstrasse 29, 6900, Heidelberg, Federal Republic of Germany.
Wilehm Roux Arch Dev Biol. 1984 Mar;193(2):117-118. doi: 10.1007/BF00848640.
In a recent publication in this journal (Berking 1983) it was claimed (1) that the head inhibitor we isolated from hydra is a Dowex artefact, (2) that a separate foot inhibitor does not exist in hydra and (3) that the only inhibitor that has so far been isolated from hydra is one which inhibits head and foot regeneration equally well. These statements are incorrect and require a response. In the following, I would like to summarise our evidence that the inhibitors isolated from hydra, including Berking's inhibitor, have different specificities for head and foot regeneration. In addition, I would like to show that none of our substances are Dowex artefacts.
在本期刊最近发表的一篇文章中(伯金,1983年),有人声称:(1)我们从水螅中分离出的头部抑制剂是一种离子交换树脂假象;(2)水螅中不存在单独的足部抑制剂;(3)迄今为止从水螅中分离出的唯一一种抑制剂对头部和足部再生的抑制效果相同。这些说法是不正确的,需要作出回应。在下文,我将总结我们的证据,即从水螅中分离出的抑制剂,包括伯金的抑制剂,对头部和足部再生具有不同的特异性。此外,我还将表明我们所得到的物质都不是离子交换树脂假象。