Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-ms8jb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-21T22:48:05.083Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XXII.—The Metabolism of the Frog's Isolated Heart

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2014

A. J. Clark ,
C. P. Stewart  and
R. Gaddie
Get access

Extract

Theories regarding the chemistry of the contraction process in striped muscle have been revolutionised during the last year. The Hill-Meyerhof theory was based on the assumption that the contraction process was due to the liberation of lactic acid by the break-down of glycogen, a non-oxidative reaction, and that the recovery process consisted in the oxidation of part of the lactic acid and the resynthesis of glycogen from the remainder. Meyerhof now believes (1, p. 305) that contraction is produced by the break-down of creatin-phosphoric acid (phosphagen), and that the energy produced by carbohydrate break-down is utilised to resynthesise phosphagen.

Information

Type
Proceedings
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 50 , 1931 , pp. 297 - 303
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1931

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

(1)Meyerhof, , Chemische Vorgange im Muskel, J. Springer, Berlin, 1930.Google Scholar
(2)Clark, and White, , Journ. of Physiol., 66, 185, 1928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Clark, and White, , Journ. of Physiol., 68, 406, 1930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Eismayer, and Quincke, , Klin. Woch., 8, 1853, 1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5)Starling, and Visscher, , Journ. of Physiol., 62, 243, 1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Hemingway, and Fee, , Journ. of Physiol, 63, 299, 1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7)Bachmann, , Pflüger's Arch., 217, 151, 1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Katz, and Long, , Proc. Roy. Soc., B, 99, 8 and 20, 1925.Google Scholar
(9)Redfield, aud Medearis, , Amer. Journ. of Physiol., 77, 667, 1926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)Arning, , Journ. of Physiol., 63, 107, 1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Boyland, , Biochem. Journ., 27, 376, 1928.Google Scholar
(12)Meyerhof, , Pflüger's Arch., 175, 20, 1919; 182, 284, 1920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(13)Eggleton, and Eggleton, , Phys. Rev., 9, 432, 1929.Google Scholar
(14)Meyerhof, , Biochem. Zeit., 196, 22, 1928.Google Scholar
(15)Clark, , Gaddie, , and Stewart, , Journ. of Physiol., 70; Proc. Phys. Soc., June 7, 1930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(16)Starling, and Evans, , Journ. of Physiol., 49, 67, 1914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(17)Cruickshank, and Shrivastava, , Amer. Journ. of Physiol., 92, 144, 1930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(18)Bayliss, , Muller, , and Starling, , Journ. of Physiol., 65, 33, 1928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(19)Rothschild, , Biochem. Zeit., 217, 365, 1930.Google Scholar
(20)Needham, , Quart. Journ. Exp. Physiol., 18, 153, 1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar