This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Earlier experiments in this laboratory (1) showed that the administration of 100 mg. of glycocyamine to rats by stomach tube produced a small and transitory increase in the creatine content of the liver, as determined by the method of Rose, Helmer, and Chanutin (2).Compared to the changes in the kidney, the increases in the liver seemed unimportant and accordingly it was deduced that the liver plays an insignificant r&e, if any, in creatine production.A different interpretation of these results is now possible in the light of Baker and Miller's demonstration (3) that the creatine content of rat liver amounts only to about 16 per cent of the total chromogenic material.Therefore, what were thought to be small increments probably represented several fold increases in "true" creatine.This was recognized by Borsook and Dubnoff (4) who, in discussing our work, pointed out that, although we failed to recognize the function of the liver as a site of creatine formation, our experimental results supported their demonstration in vitro of the conversion of glycocyamine into creatine by rat liver slices.Unpublished experiments with nephrectomized rats completed in 1936 revealed increases in the "creatine" content of the liver much above the levels attained in normal controls receiving similar quantities (100 mg.) of glycocyamine.A report of this evidence of the liver as a site of glycocyamine methylation was delayed because publication of Miller and Dubos' bacterial method for creatine (5) suggested a more adequate approach to the problem.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bodansky et al. (1941) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: