NEW CELL THEORY AND ITS FACTUAL BASIS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 20
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 11, 2011
• Sequence Number: 212
• Publication Date: January 30, 1956
• Content Type: REPORT

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
STAT
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
NEW CELL THEORY AND ITS FACTUAL FASIS
(Comment: This report gives information on the "new cell theory"
of 0. B. Lepeshinskaya, from an article by L. N. Zhinkin and V. P.
Mikhaylov (Leningrad) published in Uspekhi Sovremennoy Biologii
(Progress of Contemporary Biology), Vol 39, No 2, Moscow, March-
April 1955. Another article by Zhinkin and Mikhaylov on the same
subject appeared in Arch iv Anatomii Gistolo 'i i Embriologli
(Archives of Anatomy, Histology, and Embryology), No 2, 1955, pp
.
A. N. Studitskiy has replied to the attack made on his work by
Zhinkin and Mikhaylov. Studitskiy's article, "In Defense of the New
Trend In the Development of the Cell Theory," appears in Usseek~hi
Sovremennoy Biologii, Vol 40, No 1 (4), July-August 1955, pp 94-107.)
0. B. Lepeshinskaya's works on the development of cells from non-cellular
substance began to appear in 1934. Originally, the object of her research was
chicken embryos. She described how cells which took part In the formation of
the embryo (the endoderm and blcod tslandsl were formed from the yolk. Her
sphere of interest then expanded. In a book which appeared in 1945, she intro-
duced personal data on (1) the development of cells from the living substance
of crushed hydras, (2) the formation of the nucleus before the beginning of
cleavage in eggs of the sturgeon family, (3',) the formation of cells from the
yolk during the development of birds, and (f+) the formation of cells during
the healing of skin wounds in mammals.
Both the factual material and the theoretical concepts of 0. B.
Lepeshinskaya elicited various responses from different investigators at the
time.
In 1950 there was a special conference of the Biological Department of
the Academy of Sciences USSR devoted to the problem of living substances and
the development of cells.. Lepeshinskayaa herself read a paper to this confer-
ence entitled, "The Development of Vital Processes in the Precellular Period."
A paper entitled "0. B. Lepeshinskaya on the Development of the Precellular
Stage in the White of a Bird Egg," was presented by her co-workers V. G.
Kryukov and V. I. Sorokin.
A large number of scientists presented papers at the conference, and all
of them agreed unanimously with 0. B. Lepeshinskaya's conclusions. They
acknowledged the importance and convincing nature of her work and accepted
the basis of the "new cell theory," which she says is in agreement with dia-
lectical materialism. The conference passed a resolution which recognized the
necessity for extensive research in the field of the development of cellular
and non-cellular forms of' life, and recommended that biologists in various
specialities engage directly in the development of this "progressive field of
the science of life." The conference considered it necessary to popularize
the ideas developed by 0. B. Lepeshinskaya extensively ar,d to utilize them in
the practice of medicine and agriculture.
The resolution of the conference has now begun to be refl. ted in official
programs and in textbooks for higher educational institutitrs :.nd schools.
Beginning in 1950, a large number of special x ,;s devoted to the develop-
ment of cells and tissues from noncellular living .,iibstances began to appear,
The new cell theory has been presented as a sinhnlarly correct and absolutely
proven theory in the Bolshaya Sovetskaya Entsiklopedlya (Large Soviet Encyclo-
pedia) and in a number of brochures and books.
LoIrTani Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
are not subject to doubt. It should be noted, In additIon, thatrfrom21950 on
hardly any criticisms either of the theory itself or of the facts underlying
it have appeared in print. This in itself is a circumstance which testifies
to the fact that everything is not well, since no science can develop without
a conflict of opinion. Moreover, in this field there is no conflict of opinion,
since any scientist who says anything against the progressive cell theory is
soon relegated to the ranks of the idealists, metaphysicists, or Virchowites.
This situation was created by Academician T. D. Lysenko, who wrote in the
forward of 0. B. Lepeshinskaya's book: "It is natural that the theoretical
propositions and conclusions of 0 B. Lepeshinskaya may seem unacceptable to
those scientific workers who have not divorced their scientific thinking from
metaphysical approaches and who may reject the conclusiveness of parts of
her work since this work dues not agree with their theoretical views. For
scientific workers who are In agreement with the genuine theory of develop-
ment, the theory of dialectical materialism, the works of 0 B. Leoeshinskaya
are, in my considered opinion, completely acceptable." (1950, p V)
5.
Academician T. D. Lyse-iko emphasized that anyone who did not agree with
0. B. Lepeshinskaya or who doubted her factual data was formerly a meta.
physicist and not an adherent of dialectical materialism This proposition
and the article by N. N. Zhukov-Berezhnikov, I. N, Fayckiy, and L A.
Kalinichenko, "On Noncellular Form.- of Life," which was published in Boll
shevik in 1950, established to a great degree the incorrect path along which
the development of the study of cells has proceeded since that time. A
situation was created which caused the journals to be filled with a large
number of mediocre and sometimes simply fantastic descriptions. Under the
banner of progress, these works were given top priority in the publication
schedule; i.e., articles devoted to the development of cells from noncellular
living substance were printed in Arkhiv Anatoic, Gistologii i Embriologii
(Archives of Anatomy, Histology, andd Embryology t, Noo b, 195T, within a few
months after their submission date, whereas the normal period is a year and a
half. Forgetting that any investigation must be founded on concretely tested,
proven facts, the editorial departments of these Journals did not exhibit the
fundamental requirement of scientific study -- conclusiveness.
This led to the appearance In our journals of a number of works which are
a discredit to Soviet science. For example, an article by G A. Melkonyan, on
the development of bone from fchinococcl which had been extracted from bones
and had been immersed in formalin f;,r a number of years, was published in
Uspekhi Sovremennoy Piolugii (Progress of Conter.;porary Biology in 1950. The
newly formed" bone was lamellar, although, as is well known, pa.'ersian
systems are formed in a living organism around functioning blood vessels, while
in the described instance there could not logically be any such vessels, and,
indeed, the author did not mention them. This fact dzd not disturb the edi-
torial staff, however, and the article appeared in the "News of Science" sectio'.;.
Many other similar examples could be cited, but we are not concerned here with
individual works. Our interest is in this general trend and t.e conditions
which, in the recent past, have given rise to the cell their-;.
It would be impossible to treat all the problems connected :pith the
theory of living substance. We will therefore only examine tr,,'::e which are
related, in the main, to the factual basis of the ''new cell -y." We will
not consider either the philosophical or factual aspects of contemporary
status of the cell theory, A special article should be voted to these
problems.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
Among the arguments introduced as proof of the new cell theory, great
attention is devoted to works on the formation of various blood and connective
tissue cells from noncellular living substance (0. B. Lepeshinskaya, 1950;
Ye. Ye. Malovichko and T. N. Rupasova, 1953; and V V Averburg, 1954).
0. B. Lepeshinskaya conducted experiments with white mice on the backs
of which skin wounds had been inflicted. She studied the regeneration process
with the aid of histological sections and laminate preparations, prepared
according to G. V. Yasvoin's method According to her description, all the
stages of the transition from very fine granules formed as a result of the
decomposition of fat cells, phagocytized "blood granules," to actual lym-
phocytes could be seen in the region of infiltration on the fixed and stained
preparations. "All these transitional stages from the fine granule to the
lymphocyte," writes the author, "lead one to the conclusion that the granule,
which has been excreted by a wandering cell, is nothing more than part of a
cell, 'living substance,' which grows and produces a granule of medium caliber,
then becomes larger, and finally is transformed into a lymphocyte." (1950,
p 169)
Ye. Ye, Malovichko and T. N Rupasova also studied the healing of skin
wounds on mice. Proceeding from the proposition that "to repeat exactly the
experiments of 0. B. Lepeshinskaya is superfluous, since the results which she
obtained do not need confirmation" (1953, p 23), they modified her experiments,
Burns were inflicted on the animals and the processes which occured in the
lesions were studied under the microscope using specimens taken from the surface
of the burn with an object glass: These specimens were fixed with methyl alco-
hol and stained according to Romanovskiy's method On the basis of outlines
visible in these prepared specimens, the authors came to the conclusion that
fibroblasts, produced by the decomposition of neutrophils (pus), after passing
through a "compact sphere" stage, were formed.
V. V. Averburg studied the characteristics of cellular and phagocytic
reactions of guinea pigs to tuberculosis bacilli (BOG ) on fixed smears pre-
pared from the exudate which formed at the site of injection, On the basis
of a study of these smears, the author came to the conclusion that the nuclear
segments of the decomposed polynuclear cells "were transformed into a very fine
granule which became the source of origin for new polynuclear cells at the site
of inflammation. On the other hand, due to the decomposition of the poly-
nuclear cells, the surrounding nuclear segments grow and are transformed into
lymphocyte-like cells, which undergo further transformation into lymphocytes
and then into mononuclear cells like monocytes and polyblasts." (1954, p l06)
The photomicrographs which illustrate the works of 0, B. Lepeshinskaya,
Ye. Ye. Malovichko, T. N. Rupasova, and V V Averburg are all identical in
character: various sizes of normal blood cells, cellular elements in a state
of decomposition, and granules of various dimensions are depicted on them.
All these pictures can and should be treated not as stages in the progressive
development of cells, but as stages in their degeneration. 0. B. Lepeshinskaya
is fully aware of this. She very definitely pointed out in the second edition
of her hook that conclusions about the development of connect;'; tissue cells
during the healing of wounds from noncellular living substait _ were made on the
basis of indirect considerations. In her opinion, the possibility of the for-
mation of cells from simple protoplasmic spheres isolated from the cells of a
hydra, and the sharp increase in the quantity of -oils at a focus of inflam-
mation, which is not accompanied by a significant quantity of mitoses, are
evidence of this. "These considerations compel us," she wrote, "to acknow-
ledge the neoformation of cells by means of the transformation of the living
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
STAT
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
substance which is eliminated during the destruction of cells into new cells.
It is necessary to make such a hypothesis on the basis of certain facts which
we now have, and to try to prove this hypothesis with the aid of every modern
method of research. In order to do this, we must not limit ourselves only to
histological experiments, but must utilize the tissue culture method and
investigate the process of healing wounds with the aid of 'ultraopaque' [sic]
in a living state." (1950, pp 169-170) Safortunately, without having carried
out these experiments, 0. B. Lepeshinskaya substituted a more categorical
formulation for this cautious one.
In an article printed in Vcprozy Fi:osofii (,Problems of Philosophy), she
wrote the following; "We studied the processes which occur in wounds, paying
attention to the transfornation of living substance excreted by decomposing
cells, and were convinced that the blood cells which flow out of wounds
decompose into granules. New cells then develop from these granules through
a number of stages. The fact, established by us, that the granules, formed
during the decomposition of cells. give rise to a new quality, new cells,
advanced the scientific thought of Soviet histologists concerning certain
important problems." '1953, p 133)
Thus, 0. B. Lepeshinskaya herself has given her own hypothesis the status
of a fact. Doubtlesei.y, this evolution was faciIf tatted by the uncritical
speeches of a number of comrades who, propagandizing in favor of the new cell
theory, presented 0. B Lepeshinskaya's data on the neoformatton of connective
tissue cells from blood granules as a firmly established fact. We will intro-
duce only two examples. N. N. Zhuko,.-Verezhnikcv, I. N. Mayskiy, and L. A.
Kalinichenko, in an article entitled "Noncellular Forms of Life" wrote: 0. B.
Lepeshinskaya also demonstrated that even in the case of the destruction of
cells and the production of cell-less living substance, the cells can
reconstitute themselves, reacquiring all their former structures and vital
characteristics." (Cited from the collected work Vnekletoch e Forey Zhizni
[Extracellular Forms of Life], 1952, p 196) P. V. Makarov in a public lecture,
published by the All-Union Society for the Dicsemination of Political and
Scientific Knowledge, writes without any circumlocution: "he neoformatton of
cells was studied by 0. B. Lepeshinskaya during the healing of wounds. In
this instance, the cells are formed from the blood plasma, at the expense of
the living substance excreted by the destroyed tissues in the wounding process."
(p 15)
An article by A. A Safrorov was publist,ed recently in Vnekletochnyye
Formg Zhizni. Safronuv developed a method of treating purulent woundsby
drawing off all the nunliving elements of the wounds and simultaneously
attrycting wholesome living substance front deep within the wound." (1952,
p 176) A table showing the results of treats,,:nt with the author's proposed
method was appended Out of 112 patients, positive results were obtained with
110. Clinically positive results are i::9_spitabie, and it can only be hoped
that the author has such success in his future work. The theor?stir.al treat-
ment of his method, which he bases on the theor_esof _epeshinskaya is more
open to question. He correctly Lndicates that he .remover the r: _ and de^_omoc-
sition products not only from the surface of ti,e wounds but from deep within
it as well. We are in full agreement with this This action t::doubtedly
plays a decisive role in the healing. The reaso:.txg of the author concerning
the role of the blood, the intratissle liquids, and the protoll;.sm of the cells
in the raised granulating edge of the wound--"which are tran.,iormed into living
substance, capable under favorable conditions of developing into whole cells
and connective tissue fibzrs" (p 1d6)--is eompletely unsubstantiated and
unproven.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
Innovational work,- advance any field care .r t.,:-c= Ls
reconsider what. have seer:.' to he iirnl_,? established posiriuus u.e always
,_icome. However, the :Iata upon which these -.Turks are based ui.d be incontro-
vertible from a factual point of view. This cannot be said of tone intro-
duced by 0. B. Lepeshinskaya, Ye. is. Maicvlchko, T. N. Rupac sva, an.,; V. V.
Averburg. All of tnerr. a- -e 1 ncorrect trout the ;..ethouoio ical point or, .-W.
Their treatment of the :lures observed in the preparations is ccr::_ .+
uncritical. They ignore lc.: important uCthudolo,'icai details: (1) ii:c pictures
showing the transformation :,f small grains and ar_Plomerations into cells could
be introduced with er;oal justification as proof _f t;e opposite procec?s, i,e,,
their decomposition, and (2) ?'r:e distribution of decomposing cells ,,, one type
(neutrophilz or fat cells) and elements of sormai types of cells (lac`,}:tingles
.r histocytes) in one and the ,_r.-: r,tcrosc_,pi_ f'ield' cannot, without ,tifi-
cation, be considered as ?tviden;- a genetic relationship between th-!7.
Does all that has been said mean tone dynamics of the transfccsatio
of certain cellular structures cannot be s+,ud'ed by using histological nrecai-
._tions? Naturally, no. '1'i;e pr,ibies, of the peastT,illty of correlutiat-
,,dividuai histological preparations earn f' which represents certain det,.t u
of it momentary process is very _om,olidated. A correct interpretation
made in a given case =,?; the ,-Mowing cetaior -,served- (1) thK.
c,cic tencc of suffic:Nn:iu -e t'c, se__ _rrrr ?:'c"-cot:; wit:?h can ._..
the whole dynamics of the process; (2) an account of al: aspects of the .:~:ess
in its entirety, including the mi~,rutfou, proliferation, and degeneration of
the cells; (3) an account of the nurenr:s blbiiukraphic references wh_c}:
reflect the enormous experience of crevfous investlt;ators; and (4) a co:rpu:- i -
son of the preparations with analogous data obtained through the study
tissue elements during embryogenest.: and during nut}logicul conditions -,
organism both in the living state and in tissue cultures.
Modern hematology is based on an en'orm.ous urtount of factual data. ..1
order to explain the interrelate:aa!:i c between various types of blood r:ei-s
on the one hand and between blood an. connective tissue elements on the "'ter,
experimental data based on conditions rn an intact, organism and in tiss-:c
cultures, comparative histological. ovations, 'it id different types :'f ..: r,:i
material have been utilized. Natsr +}lv lucre are still puny disputable an
indeterminate problems in the fr-_ld of blot lu,gy. The dispute between th,
unitarians and the polyphiles I s still grain;; on, As before there is still no,
exact definition of the nature of r. no^;t_?s? Nevertheless, the basic outlines
of the interrelationships betwe n the bird elements have been :sufficient.Li
exactly clarified and, in addition, },.,ve been tested in live fora: in r1intt.,,
laboratories where a study of the laws ;:uverning the development of the bloc
has been used successfully for dia;;n :: tic purpose:;.
At the present tinge it can be considered or; established fact that an:un-
manu:uls: (1) small iyrrpnocytes a-c ipat?_.-i :,r r,,n ferny; ...'.o histoeyte
and then into fibroblasts (A. A. a, iu:ov) and, racer ecr?taut :nnr;'_tions, ante
special ryelocytes and leak::ytas (E: w.): ( oclass are rape,:-- -.
transforming into small lymphocytes, fibroblasts, and also
blasts and grunulocytos (Timol'c;.ev. i - , a:. -,: n:F:a;.
There have been no ob_erv::t;ous or mederu 1-ematclog-c whi';,+.
to the development of blood cells or car.::r.cttve tissue from gr'r'._ s 10'- ,._
the result of the decomposition of t,.,anu--CyLea or fat cc L-' -he '-di
of 0 . E. Lepeshinskaya, Ye. Ye. !?a_oviehko, T N Rupai ,-a, and V . .... ' w ; , -
are based on data which contain. n oi.hius ginal c`+.':c: in relator: t- ?- _n
up the experiments or in the proparati:n of specim::''u. Their concluci.,rs :.-
based on considerations which are the exact uppo:te of all the knowr.
trations of the various stares in the decomp-,ct:.on process which cells ,.
after the initial stage of to"-;r
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
STAT
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
In their search for facts which might confirm the "new cell theory,"
certain investigators have turned to the study of various polynuclear struc-
tures. As is known, there are formations in the rake-up of various tissues
and organs in an organism which do not have a cellular structure and which
consist of protoplasm and a small or large number of nuclei. The transverse
striated skeletal and heart muscle fibers, the polynuclear giant cells of the
bone marrow, and giant cells which develop in an inflammation focus belong to
this category. Certain epithelia! cells under normal conditions, i.e., in the
testicles, repeatedly lose their cell boundaries. A single syncytium is then
formed and consists of a mass of protoplasm with nuclei disseminated in it.
All of these formations develop from individual cells either as the result of
their coalescence or because of multiple cleavage of the nuclei without accom-
panying plasotom:y. On the other hand the isolation of nucleo-protoplasmic
territories from similar symplastic structures and formation of cells from
them is a well-known fact found in every textbook. The discovery of symplastic
structures and of the intermediate substances which are formed in every complex
multicellular organism as a result of the vital activities of the cells, at
the time, brought about an important correction in cell theory. The cell
theory was initially contrived as a theory of the structure, of an organism and
was then correctly recognized as a theory of the development of an organism.
It is the normal practice in histology to designate all these formations,
i.e., muscle fibers, symplasts, and plasmodia of various origin, as "non-
cellular" structures in contrast to ordinary cells having a single nucleus.
It would be more correct to call them "supracellular."
A number of investigators have utilized this long-established designation
in order to place, essentially in a completely formal manner, all these struc-
tures in the category of noncellular living substance. On the basis of the
well-known definition of living substance given by 0. B. Lepeshinskaya --
"living substance is a protoplasmic sass containing nuclear substance in one
form or another, i.e., in a diffuse or disseminated state, but not Jr. the farm.
of a nucleus" -- symplastic structures (muscle fibers, polynuclear cells. and
various plasmodia) cannot belong to the category of noncellular living o t??
stance since they consist of protoplasm and a certain number of typical nuclei.
Nevertheless, a number of authors feel that by describing the development of
cells from symplasts und by substituting the terms "noncellular living sub-
stance" or "noncellular substance" for the established terms "noncellular
structures," they are developing 0. B. Lepeshinskaya's theory and enriching it
with new material.
As an example of such proofs, ne can introduce the history of the work
of A. N. Studitskiy on the regeneration of lung tissue. The process of regen-
eration occurs in the lungs in a very complicated manner. Analysis of the true
picture is made difficult by the irregularity of alveolar surfaces, the pres-
ence of pulmonary macrophages, and continual participation of bacteria in the
processes taking place. A. It. .3tuditckiy has been working or. '.he study of the
n?generation of the lungs for a long time. At the conference on 'he prnblemc of
living substance and the development of cells which took place in Mosco;
22-2h May 1950 in the D-'}nartment of 2into,eical !science.,, Acndem, U.r Sc;ences
USSR, he, taking part in the discussions, made an attempt to present his data
on the regeneration of lung tissue in rabbits in conformance with the basic.
postulates of 0. B. Lepeshinskaya'a theory. Rely'ng upor. fundoi:.rntal concepts,
he described what he had observed in the following words:
"During regeneration, the surface tissue of the in,?ured bronchi begins to
phagocytize. The cellular structure of the phagocyttoing system is disrupted.
Huge complexes of protoplasm arise which encompass, accumulations of cells
destroyed by the injury to the lungs. The process of phagocyto_;?s leads to
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
from integumentary tissue into one of the forms of connective tissue which
consists of giant polynuclear cells, These, in turn, break down further into
individual, typical, connective tissue cells, This process of transforming
the structure of a tissue which has changed functionally occurs, as we have
observed, as the result of the destruction of the old structure and the
emergence of a new structure from the destroyed material." (1951, pp 150-151)
A. N. Studitskly, as an experienced histologist, knew full well that the
phenomena which he described had no relationship whatsoever to the new cell
theory. In the complex process of reparative restoration, complicated by
infection, giant cells are formed which take part in the phuaocytosis. In
time, they are partially destroyed and partially broken down into isolated
fragments. As to what this has to do wtttn noncellular living substance, he
explained that his data serve as "an illustration of the idea of the universal
significance of the processes of destruction of an old form during the tran-
sition to a new form which corresponds to the clanged function of the tissue."
(1951, p 151)
Having started out on this course, however, A. N. Studitskfy went
further. In 1552, in a report at a conference on the problems of the develop-
ment of cellular and noncellular fcrco of living substance, he, utilizing the
formal generality of the term "noncellular," spoke concretely of the conver-
sirn of the "cellular phase L?f the development of living substance into the
noncellular phase" during the process of lun,3 tissue regeneration. According
to his description, a symplast which has no cellular structure and in which
nuclei begin to dissolve is formed from the distension of the bronchial epi-
thelium. As a result of this, in the c^_nter of the symplast "a substance is
formed in which the assimilated material of the absorbed blood corpuscles and
dissolved nuclei of the symplast can completely correctly be considered as
living substance, at the expense of which new cellular elements should
(authors' underlining) be formed," 11954, pp 76-77) A. N. Studitskiy, how-
ever, was not able to trace the ensuing process of secondary formation of
cells from this noncellular living substance. He says that "an acute baso-
philta was noticeable along the periphery of the symplast. Accumulations of
nuclei of various sizes and shapes were observed which produced the impression
(authors' underlining) that they were islands where the neoformation of cells
was taking place." (p 77) Nevertheless:, in conclusion, he writes that his
data "are directly related to the solution of one of the tasks elicited by the
new cell theory,.namely, the task of determining the regular relationships
between the cellular and noncellular phases of the development of living sub-
stance," (p '19)
A very interesting thing then occured The conference, paying no atten-
tion to the fact that A. N 3tuditskiy had not observed the development of
cells from noncellular living substance, or that. he, using general terms,
spoke only of an "impression" which he had received from his work, remarked in
its resolution that his data tad the character of established fet.ts. We read
the following in the resolution. "The data reported by Prof A N t,ditskiy
concerning the fact that the syn.plastic formations which play a signif.cant
role in the development of lun,t tissue during the healing of _n,,uries are of a
noncellular character and actually represent an acc,.u.uiation of living sub-
stance from which cells develop are new. This is tin first t!sr; that this
method of cell evolution from living substance has been oLserv This phe-
nomenon extends, and to a significant degree changes, exlctir,, :onceptions
concerning the mechanism whereby tissues and organs are __stored after
injuries." (p. 270) Thus, incorrectly reporting fi::?:s, and urbitrari'_y using
them as substantiation, the leaders of the conf:re'"::e have advanced one more
"proof" in support of the new cell theory"
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12: CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
STAT
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
In recent times, a number of works have appeared on the neoformation of
nuclei from the sarcoplasm of regenerating muscle fibers (A. N. Studitskiy,
1953b, 1953c; F. S. Balakin, 1952; E: Z. Yusfina, 1954 et al.).
However, before reviewing all these works, we must examine briefly exactly
what a skeletal muscle fiber 0. B. Lepeshinskaya herself, and V. I.
Sorokin particularly, speak and write about "skeletal muscle cells" etc. From
their point of view, a muscle fiber is a cell. As is well-known, a muscle
fiber consists of earcoplasm and as many as several hundred nuclei, The fiber
is covered by the sarcolemars There are myofibrils in the surcoplasm. Such a
type of structure e:ually, as was indicated above, called subcellular or
noncellular. Muscle fibers develop frog cell mvoblasts which have clear con-
tours, reproduce karyokinetically, and possess a single nucleus. The develop-
ment of the fiber proceeds by means of the fragmentation of the nuclei
(amitosis) and the fusion of rr;oblasts- As a result of this, muscle tubes
are formed which have nuclei in the center and myofibrils along the periphery.
These well-known facts have been demonstrated in numerous experiments, in
particular, in the works of A. N. Studitskiy and A. R, Striganova (1951).
Consequently, a muscle fiber is not a cell but a histological structure of non-
cellular composition developed frc,r. cells. it has been necessary to make this
explanation since the idea if cor.siderinr; a muscle fiber as a cell does not
agree with reality.
The work of F. S. Balukin was carried out on an unknown animal resembling
a mammal. (The author did not name the precise subject of subjects used in
his investigation. Judging by the caption under one of the sketches, it was
a rabbit.) F. S. Balakin maintains that neither mitotic or amitotic division
occurs in the muscle buds which form during regeneration and that the number
of nuclei increases as a result of their neoformat;ur. from the noncellular
living substance formed during the reorganization of the protoplasm. In
addition, myoblasts may be formed from small protoplasmic lumps, "which remind
one of yellow spheres." The four Pilo ton-crographs introduced by the author do
not justify his conclusions The srt:cratac sketches whist: should show the
course of the entire process do not correspond with the pictures which can be
discerned in the photomicrographs.
F, S. Balukin's conclusions are completely unproven. Moreover, he him-
self in 1949, reporting on what was evidently the same investigation at the
Fifth All-Union Congress of Anatomdstc, Histologists, and Embryologists,
described the amitotic cleavage of the rruc.lei of muscle fibers from the 2d to
the 4th day after muscle fiber iujury. (1951, p 1521
An analogous picture can be seen if we examine the work carried out by
E. Z. Yusfina on rate and rabbits. Citing; A. M. Vo.syutcchkin, N. G. ihlorin,
and Z. S. Katsnel'son, who worked with various subjects,the author maintains
that "there is still no unified opinion on the problem of the n,._ti. d by which
the number of nuclei in muscle fibers increao_ during :ejgenerati n," ip 123)
She writes that she has not succeeded in onserv'n;; ether mitosis or amitosis.
and is of the opinion that the nuclei arise anew from ti.c sarcoplasm. It
should be noted that the author shows a nucleus forming on photomicrograph 1,
indisputably, as the result of amitotic dlvisicm. Analogous pictures can be
seen in the two subsequent sketches.. E. Z. Yu;;flna points ot:. that the nucleus
of a muscle fiber "in the majority of cases does not alt s11,is of degenera-
tion." (p 125) One might ask-:"Does degeneration occ.?or :n a lesser number of
cases? Why doesn't the author describe it?" E. Z. 'iusfina is a little more
careful in her conclusions, but the canner of discussion. and the veritability
of their work is identical,
STAT
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12: CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
The investigations of A. II. dtuditskly are too ast uet lied works
devoted to the problem of the neofornatic:: of muscle nuclei from sarcopiasm.
He conducted his experiments on chicks and rats. Since the observations of
the chicks gave clearer results, lie made a detailed study of thee. In a
period of one or 2 months, the biceps or sartoriuc muscle of a chick was sub-
jected to perforation by a needle through the skin (25-50-100 punctures). As
a result of this treatment, the fibers in the injured muscle thickened, the
number of nuclei increased progressively from the peri,pher; to the central
portions, and myoblusts divided and formed new muscle fiber;:. The changes
increased during the course of the experiment. 64uscles were also found to
change in an analogous Tanner after perforation, of the skin alone over pre-
viously injured muscles. The author considers these 0.1-.an;;es due to a con-
ditioned-reflex mec'.anisr:.)
According to A. N. data, the basic part of a nucleus is
formed in the sarooplane, from else :tin spheres contaiinin' desoxyribonuc_cic?
acid. In his basic work printed in the journal Arkhiv Anatl:.ii, G
istoill th
i Embriologii, Hi }+, 1y53, N. ftud!ts}ay illustrates varioun phases in thy
development of the c r_;m,atin spheres 'ei';h a nwiber of oi::tches rout from
preparations dyed according; to Feul;;en's method. The chromatin spheres, pro-
ceeding from the pre-nuclea.. ta;r, ar_ converted laic ;
divides cal.otically. Sepurat.inr therselve: togeth.':' with the .c?co 4.a:r, sur-
rou:din;' firer- from t.i.' ~,;-.',: ,?+h;._,;, ,,,_se nuciri
into
myol, la -, to -
One must give A. U. 3tuditskiy i,is due in that P;c' does not L ?'. I: aside
the controversial queoticr.:; which arise during the course c!' his exFerimento
no do F. 3. H:.lakjn and E. ':'sfina. II^ _xarrine Ile cc;rhasizes that
the number of nuclei is increased 'oily a:. the rc;ult of their neoformatton
fro::. chromatin spheres but also l r,eans of ita;is end nr,:it sis. He points
out that the chromatin spheres are 'bser?ved "mainly in the vicinity of cell
nuclei" (1553b, p 1j) and thus, "t1,a', c,ne r.a aso'.m,e firs
away frog.. the nuclei as the re.;ult of their ra men tut! y y weve , A.t
b n." However, A. N.
Studitskiy is of the opinion that thin 'rhyp;thesis is rout ,rntirely Justified
since "rather frequently" the cl.c.nat!r; pheres are not connected with the
nuclei. A. N. Studitskiy 1;a,-. Ievote,h his rain attention to the a:.st. a;erious
argument which can be runic again. t i,'.: dat:,, narrely, the treatcr_nt ::f the
chromatin spheres as a Stage in ti,e do ereratiin of muscular nuclei. He, how-
ever, considers "the hypa,th^_sis cnceriiiiig the clefenerat.ive character of t
described process" to be Cuoported by Two facts: ) lobe
('- regular sequence on
the observed sta1;es of devLolc;c::.ant of nuclei fro::: ci.racssti.n spl.eres--"The
latter are already formed within: tii?: 2:! to 3d week after the bebinning of the
experiment as the result of the 2 firs+ Lcutmatizations of the n.uscles. Inten-
sive processes of spontaneous decorroosition still hove not developed in the
muscles during this period." (p t};e d!nection of the process--
"A muscle subjected to systematic trnru:atisation does root. :hew the signs of
depression which right be caused by the p!,enom.encn of ?derereret.icn. On the
contrary, the increasing neofornation of muse-c rite:'3 te;tif!,: the in-
tell-city of vital processed. Tl:c structures which arise while th^ rustles ,rc in
this condition cannot have a degenerative character'." In A. N. Studitokly, however strange it r:ay seer.., has, without: it doubt, not
sufficiently analyzed the character of the reactive cha;,rrs occ_ ring in
muscle fibers during their regeneration.
Muscle fibers of the skeletal r'.usculature, os as :?:'a ,: a?,awn for a long
time, possess a significant degree of pl sticity. D.,_,,:6 regeneration, there
is a curtain degree of differentiation of the ruse, _ fifer accompanied iy a
marked increase in the quantity of nuclei. Id .i.i;._tts separate from the
reorgani.ning fiber, and muscle buds protrude out of it. (Those procesr(. may
coincide with one an;thcr.) Next, in the sueceediae stage r,.;r:neration,
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
during differentiation, the number of nuclei decreases almost to normal. Those
that are superfluous are absorbed naturally. The degeneration of excess nuclei
occurs in completely viable, differentiating, young muscle fibers. (This often
occurs during embryonic development. Let us remember that processes of neo-
fornation and degeneration occur constantly in growing bone.)
The "two facts" that A. N. Studitsk:v introduces as proof that chrocatin
spheres are transformed into msscular nuclei indicate the reverse.
A. N. Studitskiy maintains that chromatin spheres represent "living;
nuclear substance" since they have the capacity to grow. It is hardly neces-
sary to dwell long on his "proof" of this. The fact that inc "can observe
dozens of chromatin spheres having most varied dimensions in one and the same
section" (p 13) is more correctly explained as an illustration ~f the degen-
eration of nuclei by a type of pyknosis during various stages.
Consequently, A. N. dt.uditzkdy'_. widely proper:andized investigations do
not possess the characteristics required of any investigation, namely, concl.u-
si.veness and provability.
Ye. V. DmItriyeva presented a report or: din problem . the necformation
of nuclei during rep;sneration at a recent meetin- of th'; ptenur. of the A -
Union Society of Anatomists,JItetologists, and Ei:.bryologists in Leningrad. She
studied the regeneration of the muscles of the tongue of a rat using a histo-
chemical method. She uemsnatrated that the sharp increase in the number of
nuclei in the regeneratin;; muscle fibers was br,u;Lt about by the amitotic
division and frapmentatio:i. The oxyphii.,us nuclei ..bcerved in the sarco;:asm,
"shadows oi' nuclei," vacuoles with and without nucleoli inclusions, and ? ;pules
of various dimensions containing desoxyribonucLeic acid which F. S. Balakin,
E. Z. Yusfina and A. 11. Studitskiy described, represent various stages in the
destruction of superfluous numbers of nuclei as the result of their lysis and
pyknosis. The fact that all these pictures were observed. nut during the early
stages of regeneration when the number of nuclei is increasing, but, as is
correct, in the later stages, i.c., after 7 to l0 days, when the numbers begin
to diminish, serves as proof .f this.
It ray be stated witt' complete justi+.ic'1tio1: that tit's neoformation of
nuclei from the sarcoplasn: of muscle f'_bers was not proven in any of the works
introduced.
V.
0. B. Lepeshinskaya, an Is well !:::own, in studying tl,e development of a
fertilized sturgeon egg in reLation to the old observations of V. V. Zolenskiy,
did not observe the development of a r.orpholo,;ically formed nucleus in it
during the early stages. According; t, her description, the nucleus developed
later from protoplasmic granules. Thp? process of forrmatlou of the female pro-
nucleus, according to her re,,resentation, reflects hoe stages in the ptlylogeoetlc
development of a cell from nencelluia;' living substance. Then.' nbservations
by 0. B. Lepeshinskaya were recently carefully checked by T. 1 ?v:: 11},531
in the Laboratory of the Fundamentals of Piscicr,,ture of the P'-..n Act..tniotx;rtion
for Pisciculture of the Ministry of the Fist, ng Industry. 1. demonstrated that a nucleus in various of its states was pre:' (!-,t in the e;_.,
of sturgeons during every period of their develc,pmcnt. ;;very; ,, s l,i,l'sd
into a series of more than 200 sections 7 microns thick, and tl , nuclear was
observed in only one or two of them. T. I. Faleyeva's invest-,.,tions explain
the errors made by 0. B. Lepeshinskaya. (At a conferer - : of ?!n.bry:,lcgists
held in Leningrad 25-31 January 19,3, B. N. Kazans:a. iepccrtud the result;, of
his work on an analysis of the processes of eg,;-c__-.;;c.turation, ovul :.ion,
and fertilization in sturgeons. The data ob'm.oo:-,e,l by him spe.ii- in supl,,,rt of
the succession of nuclei in ovocytes during t'. period of ov.,genesis. Theses
of the Conference, pp. 11-131)
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12: CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
STAT
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
Precisely this erroneous data of 0. 3? Lepechinskaya initiated a review
of a problems of the development of gametes which has great general biological
significance. T. D. Lysenko insisted on the necessity for a review of this
problem in his report at the conference on the problem of 'living substance.
Regarding embryonic development and the laws governing the differentiation of
embryonic tissues in a simplified manner, he asked: "How can the simple divi-
sion of an egg cell give rise to the cells of various tissues and organs which
it does not resemble in either form or content?" (1951, p 11?). The process
of differentiation of various elements in the tissues of developing embryos
and the processes of organoCer,esis have been well studied. Not being informed
of this, however, he care to the conclusion tint "it is not possible to imagine
the development of an organ from an ecbr?.
-~ ~ or :ror"' a 6ern,.eii without recog-
nizing the formation and origination of cells from noncelittlar ubstance.
(p 110)
An analogous picture was presented in the report of A. A. Avakyan, who
dogmatically postulates the necessity of tie formation of phasicly embryonic cells and the tissues of the callus from a living substance u2aving
no cellular structure. Basing; his arguments on general considerations'
onsiderations rather
than facts, he says that "tl,e formation of new cells from nonce'__l.s should be
considered a necessity in or,--,anic nature." :'p lot)
The investigations of N. S Stroganova (1952), B. A. Yesdanyan (1953),
and A. V. Abuladac (_953) were published after this conference. :n them,
these authors tried to prove the development of ;ar,.etes from, noncellular
living substance. We will review their works briefly.
N. S. Stroganova investigated the testicles of white rats. In addition
to the preparation of' the usual histola,-lcal sections, she made extensive use
of slides containing testicle specimens. A number of the slides were fixed
and stained, while others, after dilution with a physiological salt solution,
were merely covered with cover glasses. The study of the enclosed drop was
carried out at 37?C in a "living state." The work is accompanied by sketches
and photomicrographs.
The author describes the formation of' early apernatogonia in the tes-
ticles of young rats from anuclear protopla3mic drops which, "evidently,"
are formed from the interstitial substance in which "one should find" the
substances liberated during the degeneration if' follicular cells and gonocytes
within the testicular tissues. The author des-ribes basophilic drops of a
dark blue color and having vurious dimensions in the testicles of half-grown
rats. Fine stratifications without any structure can be seen. "Their
presence is expressed by a violet tint along the periphery. Starting with
this it is possible to trace all the details of ti series of subsequent tran-
sitions ending with the formation if a small structure morphologically similar
to a nucleus from a basophilic drop." (p 45j These structures, according to
N. S. Stroganova's observations, do not initially have protoplasm and develop
like "bare" nuclei. Their protoplasm appears lager.
On the basis of her observations, H. S. 0tro6ar:uva comes to the conclu-
sion that "the ontogenesis of' a gamete begins with a living substance having
no cellular structure." (p 47)
What can be said of this work? The sketches which sho'al' illustrate the
author's data do not ucheive their purpose. As an one can analyze
the six sketches in Plate No. 1 which are supposed ' show the developm.ent of
spermatogonia from anuclear drops in the testicle .;f a 30-day-old rnt.
Sketch No 1 on this plate represents the usual view of the eon?rcl.tttud tubules
in the testicle at an average enlargement. Th remaining five ;ketches are
great enlargements of isolated , s of various 'r'cm prepare(' according to
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
to Feulgen's method and stained with eosinazure. Individual cells, some kind
of mounds, and traces like spots where cells have touched the glass are visible
on the photomicrographs. In order to speak of any kind of succession from one
to another of these essentially diverse fbrmati.ons, in addition to daring, one
must possess a significant degree of imagination. Treating the basophilic
drops (sketches No 3, 3a, 4, 5, and 6 sf plate No 2) as early stages in the
development of spermatogonia in half-crown rats is simply unprovable. Iso-
lated cells of the usual type and of various dimensions and certain degener-
ating cell elements are visible in the photomicrographs.
These pictures should more correctly and Logically be treated as illus-
trations of various star;: in the destruction of individ?.:al cells, a process
which occurs cont'_nuously during normal spermatogenesis,
B. A. Yezdanyan investigated the testicles of white rats and rabbits
using histochemical methods in nucleic acid. In his ;,pinion, he has succeeded
in tracing the conversion of basophilic spheres, drops as described by N. S.
Stroganova, in the wall: of the ,eminiferous tubules. According to his data,
some of these spheres puss through the walls of the tubules to the basement
membrane and are convert-d during this process into yo.mc spermat.ogonia. An
analysis of the sketches acrrmpanying 'hi:: and a crir.icai comparison of
them with the text '~?aves n., doubt tint ' - author x li'??? describes a
process which is actually proceeding in the opposite iirc- i-n and regards the
various stages in the degeneration of the individual coil w'rch rake up the
walls of the tubules as their neoforration. i*. i:: ':n_erstandable that, daring
the destruction of a cell, the nucleic acids entering into its composition do
not disappear immediately and can be observed histochemically in the form of
globules and granules of various sizes among the cellular debris. This, how-
ever, is the terminal stage in the decomposition c;f a cell and not the initial
phase of its developtront.
A. V. Abuladze studied the histological changes to transplanted ovaries
of 2- to 4-month-old rabbits. 3i.e studied the ovaries for L-lip days using
histological preparations stained with hecatoxylln-eo:.in. The changes in the
tissues of the successfully transplanted ovar-es can to divided into two
periods. The first period is characterized by degenerative chances which
encompass all the tissues of tee transplant to a certain degree. TTurinr this
time, a "large part" of the egg, cells In the primary follicles undergo granu-
lar regeneration; and the secondary follicles, g-aafian vesicles, and corpus
luteum decompose. This per ivd las*_s from 1; to a days. Thtring the second
period, in addition to the continuing degenerative processes, regenerative
processes begin. After the Ott. to uth day, new primary and then secondary
follicles are formed.
"One can assume," writes A. V. Abuladze, "that the primary follicles
originate along the course of the blood vessels and capillaries and that the
cells which cover the follicles (the follicular coil.) are directly related to
the vascular walls." (p 47) Toe data of the author concerning the connection
of the developing follicular cells with the element:: of the vascular walls is
not conclusive since her method of atainim, does not afford a taxis for d,otcr-
mining the histological interrelationships between connective tl.ssue elements
and other cells. We will not dwell on this problem however. Within the scope
of this article we are interested in A. V. Abuladze's data cone ning the
formation of egg cells. In her opinion, they develop from ec:rellular living
substance carried in by the blood. Initially, the er,,g c?,_:,, are represented
by an anuclear protoplasmic formation. The nucleus appears later. The author
did not observe the neoforcation of egg cells from noncellular living sub-
stance directly.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
She based her conclusion:: only on indirect considerations: the formation
of primary follicles along the course of blood vessels, the correspondence in
time of the appearance of capillaries and a specific stage in the decomposition
of old egg cells, and the fact that she was unable to observe either mitosis or
amitosis in forming egg cells. "These observations," writes A. V. Abuladze,
form a basis for asswnin(authors' underlining) that the egg cells in primary
follicles do not originate by the divic.on of previously existing cells, but
arise anew from structureless living substance carried in by the blood, since
their formation is directly connected with the appearance of functioning blood
vessels in the transplant." (p 50) The author write: in just as unprovable
but even more dogmatic a manner in relation to the secondary follicles. The
egg cells contained in them arise snnnt;,neeusly at the c.~rcnse of the sub-
stances introduced into the conditions of the radium b? blood containing
decomposition products." (p 50)
From what has been said, it is clear that there is no special necessity
for spending much time on a review of tie proofs advanced by A. V. Abuladzc
in support of the development of egg cells from noncellular living substance.
Her conclusions are not based on concrete facts. but on indirect considerations
treated from a biased point of view and essentially of a hypothetical nature.
Nevertheless, ad1:?;0e:ts _f the new cell theory immediately accorded the
data of A. V. Abuladze the status of firn.]y established fact. L. M. Plyushch
used her data as an example of the provable correctness ::,f the new cellular
theory in an article published in Voprosy Filoscfli (Problems of Phil)sophy),
No 4, 1953.
A. N. Studitskiy in an article ent'.t!ed "Toward:: t. Creative Development
of the Problem of' Species Formation" (19;3x) wrote tlhe' .1. V. ..Luladze's
experiments "left no doubt about the fact that the source of '.;,c ncuformation
of gametes is the living; subs;....... carried in'c, -he er.:nsn,c rite '.y
the blood." (pp 22-23) tcri ova-
In reading the works In whicl, suti.crs e;:r:t to prove the r_'evelopr:r: , o'
spermatogonia and ovogonia fron. lumps of r:.r,.e!.iuler living substance,
philic drops, etc., the following quest lot. i ol...un'tiril~? arisen. if gamete;;
can be formed and are formed front particles of _tr,cl,ureless living substaice,
repeating, from the point of view of 0. D. ].epenhinskaya and her followers,
certain phylogenetically infinitely re's.-,te stage, in the development of the
organic world, why do spermato -nia, spercntocyr,es of various types, and
spermatids exist in the tes'i.:; or o"ar;' of a given ani'ral? What biological
meaning do all thesr cellular forms 'rare from the point of view of biogenetic
law as it is underst-,I from the position of the new cell theory? This
question still has not been answered.
The ideulistfc nature of A. 'aeissnar.'s theory of embryonic plasma leads
to the concept of ti.c continuity of the rr:brronic tract. This concept, which
is not acceptable from, the ideological . is supported at the present
time by a large number of facts in the f?.clr,;; of comparative embryology, regen-
eration, etc., which we will not anal; se ' :t :~;;ould only be remarkcl
that, although we do not recognize the continuity of germ cells, we do not
consider it necessary to accept obligatorily, as certain author: do, the
development of germ cells from noncellular living substance.
The question of how gore cells orig trite in anicalc be derided on
the basis of strictly proven facts.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
STATJJ
In the critical analysis of the material underlying the "new cell theory"
we have only touched upon a few questions. From cur point of view, the data of
0. B. Lepeshinskaya, Ye. Ye. Malovichko, T. I
concerning the formation of various blood cells and connective tissue efrom
g
granules remaining after the decomposition of granulocytes and fat cells is
factually unproven. The same is true of the works of N. S. Stroganova, B. A.
Yesdanyan, and A. V. Abuladze on the development of gametes from noncellular
living substance carried in by the blood or formed as the result of the decom-
position of the cellular elements of a Gamete. The widely propagandized data
of F. S. Balakin, E. Z. Yusfina, and A N. Studitskly concerning the develop-
ment of nuclei from the sarcoplasm of a muscle fiber during its regeneration
can likewise not be considered conclusive.
We did not analyze a number of other morphological works, i.e., those of
G. K. Khrushchev, L. S. Sutulov, KCh. M. Karolinskaya, M. Ya. Subbotin, V. M.
Lumpova, N. N. Kusnetsov, F. S. Ragol'skaya, etc., in which the authors have
made attempts to demonstrate the formation of cells from noncellular living
substance, since they are equally unproven. It is only necessary to notice
that the authors of the .:a?oriry of these wirko, knowing full well the insuf-
ficient basis for their conclusions, usually describe the process of cell neo-
formation with such reservations as "evidently," "one can assume," "produces
the impression," "it is highLy probable," etc.
Turning to a review of the facts produced by 0. B. Lepeshinskaya herself,
it is necessary to establish pr. respect to the material presented above, that
the formation of cells during the healing of wounds in mammals is completely
unproven. Unfortunately, 0. B. Lepeshinskaya and especially her commentators
have changed their originally cautious formulations into dogmatic assertions
having no basis in fact. In the light of new investigations during recent
years, the formation of a nucleus before the beginning of cleavage in sturgeon
egg cells was also not confirmed. There is a nucleus in the ovocyte which
never disappears, and 0. B. Lepeshinskaya simply did not observe the first
division at the end of the prophase and beginning of the anaphase, the chromo-
somes of which are disperses just as they usually are during karyokinetic
division.
On 14 April 1954, P. V, Makarov and V. Ye Koslov gave a report to the
Leningrad Society of Anatomists, Ristologists, and Embryologists entitled "On
the Nature of Morphogenetic Processes in Substances Isolated From Cells."
Having repeated the experiments on the grinding of hydra, the authors dupli-
cated the phenomena which 0. B. Lepeshinskaya described, but they were not
able to confirm her bassi:: hypothesis that cells were formed anew from living
substance during this process. The same trans forma t;ons were also observed
during the use of ground material killed with formalin and osmic acid. The
fifth thesis of their report reads as follows: "On the basis of data oht'a ned
by us the conclusion must be reached that the phenomena described by 0. E.
Lepeshinskaya in her work on hydras were based on not biological, but phy rcu-
chemical processes." (The work, of V. Ye. Kozlev and P. V. Makarov appeared
in Vestnik Leningradskogo tniversi.tAta (Herald of Leningrad University!. No 7,
47
195, pp 55-59, after our article had already been submitted to the
printers.)
Thus, even P. V. Makarov, who propagandized and pres-i'.sd these data in
a detailed manner in his 1953 book, did not confirm t,.-o. Consequently, the
basic material of 0. B. Lepeshinskaya, aside f,-,m the development of cells
from yolk spheres has either been refuted or cannot be considered proven.
[A work by V. N. Orekhovich, M. I. Levit, and T. P. Levchuk-Kurokhtina came
out after our article had already been submitted to the printers. The authors,
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8 i
using labled amino acids, demonstrated that the s,Tal:esr c,.' protein molecules
does not occur in the protein or bile of a developing chic}. embryo. From this
they concluded that "the development of cellular elements from proteins of the
yolk or the protein membrane appears highly improbable." Biokrimiy a
(Bio-
chemistry) 19, 5, 1954, pp 610-615. Thus, the neoforrlation of cells from the
yolk is doubtful in the right of this latest data.)
At a conference of embryologists held In Jonuary of this year A. G. Knorre,
in a report ent_tled "Certain Laws of Embryonal Histogenesis", reported that,
according to his data, the yolk. was not transformed into cells during the
development of a chick emurpi ',Theses -f t!:e Conference, PD 32-35)
In this work, we have riot. touched iii ,711 C. S. L peoin n;Y.aya'a concept of
"living substance." This question should be the suh,)ect if a special article.
It is only necessary to point out that it, is ci.mlletely undefined. This fact
was noted in print after the conclusion of the work ,f the Second Conference
on the Problem of "I4oncell oar Forms of Life", `-7 N'--53
11 y -J (K. Dra,~nrov,
The clefinitinn, which Q. F. Lepeshinskaya gn-;e for livingubstance in
her monograph is essent+ 1
wars): .._ diff..ent. ._.,-i ti,c' .;1;!ch U
c:?.? ;;ve in c-.r.,:'u-:ct.ion
V. G. Kryul:-v .:; 1 jf the 1 d.:vesalmysEnts1klopadi?;a
(Large Soviet Encyclspedia).
The term "livin; sub:ttrnce" is us.:d ut the present time in relation to
blood plast.o., various "destructured tissues," the white and yellow of birds'
eggs, the abdominal fluid of the silkworm, and, finally, the content of
ordinary morionuclear cell duim l the ,.`?t e of mitoti- division. We must
? n
review the last-flamed example of "1 loin;; ;utstar.cr_" in a core detailed manner.
According to 0. E Lepe,;hina::a. caneert, .1 1visi?
r. "Ue;;r:is with
the transformation of the lists; ubstanr- of ,he c?'!. iris a noncellular
form." (1952, p 89) This is carr_fec*_ed ty tie coil's :o..s of the character-
istic differention between the nucleus; urd the rrotoplasr:. _Iii other words, in
her opinion, a cell., in th,! mitotic ;state, repeats a certain primeval phylo-
genetic stare which existed on earth before its emergence. It is hardly
necessary to dwell in any detail upon t..e err ne zsnes of ouch a treatment,
of the process of mitotic division. Her only basis for this is the temporary
disappearance of the nuclear aembrcure and the nuclcol':_. during a specific
stage in the development of the nucleus. The nucleus does not disappear, how-
ever, during the metaphase, but is transformed into another state, another
form. During mitotic divi Len, the cellular or,anoids, i.e., the cytocontru:n,
the Golgi apparatus, and the o.!..iriosuc,es, are preserved in the cytoplasm.
In the divided cell these o:;;:: r:i?;s represent the phylogonesis of unquestionably
new formations. This also, oncr :r;ain, indic''et, the fact that cells do not
return to a state of primary tivinc; substance durInc. ce.l1 din' :ion. There
are no serious bases for 0. B. Leveshina:._. .Lac ;seer'.; i, concerning
the transition of a cell into a ricrac
It is appropriate that we rem ,so r entn :: c; ,.Y:n1 "vho have confi-.;ed
and developed" the new cell theory. 0 P. Lepesl.inc;:aya herself indicatcrl
in her report on 22 march 1950 thut the data of ti. Bosi:'yan unJ M. M
Nevyadomskiy (together with the data of a number of othe_ air.1agi e in General Histology),
Gosizdat, 1932
I. C. K,chergin, and A. N. Bukulev, '-:r Further Creative Develop-
rent of the Physi:)1ogical Theory of 1. F. Yav'cv," ;!cdib.,inskiy Rabotnik,
No 41 (1265), 2951
0. B. Lepeshinskaya, Proiskhozhdeniye Kletok is y':I_vogo Vcchthesto. t
Rol' Zhivogo Vu::rel:estva v Organizue (The Origination of Cells From Livi::_
Substance and the Role of Living Substance in an Or?anium), 2d corrected and
supplemented edition, Publishing Houoe of the Asad?r,,v of Medi^r.l 3cienc,3
USSR, 1950
0. B.. Lepeshinskaya, "The Development of 'vital Pr a ec in the Pre-
cellular Period," Sbornik: "Vnekletoclmyye For;:y 3.._ .._" (:o!. ected Work:
"Extracellular Forms of Life") Publishiu, House of t.te Its' crty of Peds ogical
Sciences, RSFSR, 1952, pp 'L 5.16
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
_Jr
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
0. B. Lepeshin'skaya, "The New Cell Theory,'` Priroda, No 11, 1952, p 18
0. B. Lepeshinskaya, "The Creative Meaning of the Works of Marx, Engels,
Lenin, and Stalin in the Development of Natural Science," Voprosy Filosofii,
No 2, 1953, PP 120-138
0. B. Lepeshinskaya and V. G. Kryuk.,v, "Living .u1::tance," Bol'shaya
Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya (Large Soviet Encyc_opedral, 2d ed, Vol 16, 1952,
pp 88-90
T. D. Lysenko, "On the Works of Active Member of the Academy of Medical
Sciences USSR 0. B. Lepeshinskaya," presented at the Conference on the Problem
of Living Substance and the Development of Cells, 22.24 May 1950
T. D. Lysenko, Novoye v Nauke "0 Biologicheskom Vide" (What's New in
Science Concerning "Biological Species"), Sel'khozgiz (Agricultural Publishing
House), 195
P. V. Makarov, "Novyye Uspekhi 3ovetskoy Biologii-0 Rabotax Laureata
Stalinskoy Premii Deystvitel'nogo Chiena Ah41 SESR 0. B. Lepeshinskoy) (New
Achievements of Soviet Science-On the Works of Stalin Prize Winner and Active
Member of the Academy of Medical .,cien--c ?'SSR 0. B. Lcpeshinsknya), transcript
of a lecture published by the Publishing House of the All-Union Society for
the. Dissemination of Political and Scientific Knowledge, Leningrad, 1951
P. V. Makarov, Osnovy Tsitologii (Fundamentals of Cytology), "Sovetskaya
Nauka" Publishing House, 1953
P. V. Makarov and V. Ye. Kozlov, "Co Morphugenetic Processes in a Substance
Isolated From Cell;," Tezisy Dokladov na 2,asdanai Leningradskogo Obshchestva
Anatomov, Gistologov f _:.hriologov 1L 'v. 115!' ,Theses of the Reports of the
Meeting of the Leningrad 3ociet.y of A::,t,'ohst=, Histologists, and Embryologists
on 114 April 1954)
G. A. Melkonyan, "On the Possibility of Osteogenesi. Ootsidt and Organism
After Anabiosis of the Bone Cells," Uspekh: Sovret:eenoy Biologic, Vol 30,
No 2 (5), 1950, p 390
L. N. Plyushch, "On the Basis of the, New Cell Theory," Voprosy Filosofil,
No 4, 1953, PP 185-191
A. A. Safronov, "The Treatment of Wounds in the Light of 0. B.
Lepeshinskaya's Theory," Sbornik: "Vneklstochnyy'e Formy Zhiznt,", pp 176-187
Soveshchaniye po Problcs.e Zhivogo Veshch??stva : Razvitiya Kletok 22-24
V. 1950 g (Conference, on to Problem of Substance and the Development
of Cells, 22-24 May 1955), F:b1Lsiing Hu?::e of the Aza?iemy of ciences USSR,
1951
N. S. Stroganova, "Or the Orrin a:rl lrve'_;? r:er,t f 5,,1e raet _
Mammals," Izvestiya AN SSSR, Seriya B'_ologiche;:kaya, No 6, 155 , ;;i; = -!.:,
A. N. Studitskiy, "Toward the Creative Developsent of the :ercbLets o-
Species Formation," '.ispekhi ;iovremennoy Bloloi;li, Vol 1'. 1953, pp 1
A. N. Studitskiy, "The Development if Cells Fr: ellular Living
Substance in a Muscle Tissue." Arkhiv Anatoaov :'z:: ?lc;5ov, J. Embriologov.
Vol 30, No 4, 1953, pp 1C-25
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8
A. N. Studitskiy, "Types of Neoformation of Colic F',.,'; Living Substance,"
Zhurnal Obshchev Biologii, Vol 14, No 3, 195;, pp 177-.1)7
A. N. Studitskiy, "Cellular and Noncellular Fhases in the Develpment of
Pulmonary Epithelium During the Regeneration of a Lung," Trudy Konferentsii
po Probleme Ruzvitiya Kletochnyl:h i Nekl.etochnykh Form Zhivogo Veshchestva v
Svete Teorii 0. B. LepesLi.iskoy, pp 60-7;
A N. Studitskiy and A. R. Str,.gano?'a, Voss tanovite. nvye Protsessy v
Skeletnoy Muskulature 'Restorative Processes in the Skeletal Musculature),
Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences USSR, ;951
Trudy Konferentsii po Probleme Rasvitiya Kietothnykh i Nekletochnykh Forn:
Zhivogo Veshchevtva v S:etr Tecr_i 0.5 . Lepeshinskoy ',Works of the Conference
on the Problem of the Dpvrloprr,ent. of Cellular and Noncellular Forms of Livia
Substances in the Ligtt of '.he Theory of C- P. Lepeshinskaya, Moscow: Medgi,z,
1954
T. 1. Fuleyevu; "Cy tomorphclo~icu'_ Data on the Processes of Maturation
and Fertilization of Sturgeon. E6g Cell,," Doklady Akalemti Nauk SSSR, Vol 91,
No 1, 1953, pp 161-163
E. Z. Usfina, "On the 3ourres for the Neoformation of Nuclei in a
Rogenerating Muscle Fiber," Trudy Konferentsii po Proble'e Rasvitiya
Kletochnykh i Nekletochnykh Form Zhivcgo Veshchevtva v Svete Teorit 0. B,
Lepeshinskoy, pp 123-128
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/07/12 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700240212-8