Serological and Biochemical Comparisons of Proteins [antikvár]

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Alan A. Boyden, Rutgers, The State University The Serological Museum, like our well-known groundhog, has a date every year on February second. According to popular belief the groundhog comes outof his wintersleep and tries to determine what the future may have in store for him. Though it is commonly assumed that the groundhog has been coming out on the second of February for a very long period of time, the Serological Museum's first such appearance was in 1948. No one seemsto questiontheusefulness of the groundhog's annual appearance, but there may be somé who have wondered why the Serological Museum came out the first time and what, if anything, has been accomplished during the succeeding years. It seemed appropriate to us ten years ago to establish an agency, the primary purpose of which would be to promote the field of comparative serology. The name for this agency was "The Serological Museum," a division of our Bureau of Biological Research. The originál meaning of the word "museum" was a place of study, and this we mean it to be always. The objects of study, however,are somewhat unusual, that is, the antigens of organisms which are often obtained from the blood sera of animals. The methods of study are primarily serological or immunochemical. We need no great halls and showcases for the exhibition of our objects of study; bottles of sera look much like each other. We do, however, need suitable cold rooms for the preservation of these sera and suitable apparatus for their characterization and comparison. Just as it seemed appropriate to found the Museum ten years ago, it now seems appropriate to look at its activities and alsó to re-examine parts of the field of comparative serology. The Serological Museum was originally and is now dedicated to apparently simple propositions: that the proteins of the bodies of organisms are essential parts of their natures and are fully as worthy of collection, preservation, and comparison, as for example are the skins and bones of vertebrate animals; and alsó that serological methods may be used for the required comparisons. But simple as these propositions appear to be at first sight, there are definite assumptions associated with them which we must continually re-examine. These assumptions are as follows: 1)The proteins of organisms are relatively stable and cha'racteristic features. 2)Serological methods are, at least potentially, capable of providing data for an evaluation of the biochemical similarities which these proteins possess. 3)A serological piacement series may have significance for systematics.