We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2009
Ciliary motion refers to the activity of cilia, which are hairlike structures protruding from the surface of certain epithelial cells widely found in the animal kingdom. The main function of the currents produced by ciliary beating is the moving of fluid and small particles over the ciliated surface. It is now more clearly recognized that the study of cilia is contributing to the fundamental understanding of contractility and in this way is also helping to elucidate the mechanisms associated with muscular contraction, amoeboid and intracellular movements.
1 Cf. Aspects of Cell Motility (Cambridge, 1968), Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology, xxii.Google Scholar
2 Sleigh, M. A., The Biology of Cilia and Flagella (Oxford, 1962), 1.Google Scholar
3 Rivera, J. A., Cilia, Ciliated Epithelium and Ciliary Activity (Oxford, 1962), 5, 12, 29, 38, 71.Google Scholar
4 Müllener, E.-R., Gesnerus, xix (1962), 25–49.Google Scholar
5 Kruta, V., Časopis lékař českých, cvi (1967), 1209–1213.Google Scholar
6 Purkinje, and Valentin, , The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, xix (1835), 119.Google Scholar
7 On Valentin see Hintzsche, E., G. G. Valentin (1810–1883) (Bern, 1953)Google Scholar; Kisch, B., Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc., n.s. xliv (1954), 142–192.Google Scholar On Purkyně see John, H. J., Jan Evangelista Purkyně Czech Scientist Patriot (Philadelphia, 1959)Google Scholar; Kruta, V., Teich, M., Jan Evangelista Purkyně (Prague, 1962)Google ScholarPubMed. Cf. also Pelíšek, R., Zprávy komise pro dějiny přírodních, lékařských a technických věd, ii (1960), 16–18Google Scholar (in Czech); Kruta, V., “Current Problems in History of Medicine”, Proceedings of the XIXth Congress for the History of Medicine (Basel–New York, 1966), 436–460 (in French)Google Scholar; Kruta, V., Časopis lékař českých, cvi (1967), 509–512 (in Czech).Google Scholar
8 Purkyně, J. E., Opera selecta (Prague, 1948), 126–127.Google Scholar
9 Another English translation appeared earlier in The Dublin Journal of Medical and Chemical Science, vii (1835), 279–284.Google Scholar The English translation in The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal was retranslated into French and appeared in the same year in Annales des Sciences Naturelles, see Kruta, , op. cit. (5), 1211.Google Scholar
10 Purkinje, und Valentin, , Arch. Anat. Physiol. wiss. Med. (Müller) (1834), 391–400Google Scholar; Purkyně, J. E., Opera omnia (Prague, 1937), ii, 148–153.Google Scholar
11 Purkinje, Joh. E. et Valentin, G., De phaenomeno generali et fundamentali motus vibratori continui … commentatio physiologica (Wratislaviae, 1835)Google Scholar; Purkyně, J. E., Opera omnia (Prague, 1918), i, 277–371.Google Scholar
12 Wratislavia is the Latin for Breslau, formerly the centre of Prussian Silesia, now Wróclaw in Poland. It should not be confused with Bratislava in Czechoslovakia. (Cf. Hughes, A., A History of Cytology (London & New York, 1959), 27.)Google Scholar
13 Sharpey, W., “Cilia”, in Todd, R. B., The Cyclopaedia of Anatomy and Physiology (London, 1836), i, 630.Google Scholar
14 Purkinje, Joh. Ev. et Valentin, G., Nova Acta Physico-Medica A.C.L.-C.N.C., xvii, 2 (1835), 843–853Google Scholar; Opera omnia (Prague, 1939), iii, 15–22.Google Scholar
15 Valentin, Purkinje, Arch. Anat. Physiol. wiss. Med. (Müller) (1835), 159–160Google Scholar; Opera omnia, ii, 153–154.Google Scholar
16 Purkinje, , Arch. Anat. Physiol. wiss. Med. (Müller) (1836), 289–290Google Scholar; Opera omnia, ii, 154–155.Google Scholar
17 Valentin, , Repertorium Anat. Physiol. (Valentin), i (1836), 148–159; also 277–278.Google Scholar
18 Valentin, G., Flimmerbewegung, in Wagner, R., Handwörterbuch der Physiologie (Braunschweig, 1842), i, 484–516.Google Scholar Some aspects of the historical relations between the elucidation of ciliary motion and the cell-theory are discussed by Müllener, op. cit.(4).
19 Mayer, , Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde (L. F. Froriep), xlvii (1836), 179, 247Google Scholar; i (1836), 118–119. Also Neue Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde (L. F. Froriep & R. Froriep), ii (1837), 102–103; vii (1838), 40–41.Google Scholar
20 Raspail, F.-V., Nouveau système de chimie organique (2nd edn., Paris, 1838), i, 302–303Google Scholar; ii, 468 ff. (Attack on Purkyně and Valentin on pp. 485–486.)
21 Opera omnia, ii, 151.Google Scholar
22 Müller, J., Arch. Anat. Physiol. wiss. Med. (Müller) (1835), 128.Google Scholar
23 Henle, J., Allgemeine Anatomie (Leipzig, 1841), 264.Google Scholar
24 Opera selecta, 127.Google Scholar
25 Ibid. The publication itself was dedicated to Baron Altenstein, the minister responsible for ecclesiastical, educational and medical affairs in Prussia, and the famous Alexander Humboldt, and it may, perhaps, be of more than passing interest to mention the circumstances in which the dedication came to be written. Of course, Purkyně had good reasons for his long-held intention to dedicate an important piece of work to Altenstein. (See Purkyně's letter to Altenstein (30 November 1834) inquiring whether the minister would accept the dedication (Deutsches Zentralarchiv, Merseburg).) In the office of the Berlin ministry Purkyně found a sympathetic reception for his research projects and he was clearly hoping for more in connection with his plans to set up an experimental physiological institute. Valentin as a Jew, who was not willing to resort to baptism, was fully aware that he was barred from holding a professorship in a Prussian university. Nevertheless, he might have entertained some hopes that with the possible help of an understanding minister and the direct backing of an internationally renowned liberal-minded scientist he would in the end break through the barrier and obtain an appointment. Valentin wrote to Altenstein the day after the dedication had been accepted (19 December 1834): “Wenn ich äussere Umstände halber nicht in die Reihe der Universitätslehrer eintreten kann und darf, um so ebenfalls des Glückes geniessen zu können, Ew. Excellenz gnädigster Huld und väterlicher Protektion unmittelbar nahe zu treten, so ergreife ich doch mit inniger Freude die Gelegenheit es öffentlich zeigen zu dürfen, dass ich die durch Ew. Excellenz hohe Güte auch auf mich sich erstreckende Beförderung alles wissenschaftlichen Strebens mit einigem Danke anerkenne.” (From a typewritten copy, Deutsches Zentralarchiv, Merseburg.) Valentin was, apparently, prepared to forsake even the possibility of having a chair in physiology of his own in Bern, which was offered to him in 1836, for the post of an extraordinarius at the side of Purkyně in Breslau or Müller in Berlin (see Hintzsche, E., op. cit. (5), 27–29Google Scholar). In fact, due to the publication Valentin was able to meet Altenstein (see Altenstein's letter to Purkyně in which the minister expresses his thanks for the copy of the book, Deutsches Zentralarchiv, Merseburg). But neither this acquaintance nor Humboldt's influence were able to overcome Prussian state policy in this matter, and even Purkyně some years later largely concurred. (See draft of Purkyně's answer to the Prussian authorities requesting him to offer his view on the admittance of non-baptized Jews to professorships, Literární archiv Památníku národního písemnictví, Prague, 29K 49/52). In the end Valentin went to Bern to become an Ordinarius and he remained there until his death (1883).
26 Nordenskiöld, N. E., The History of Biology (London, 1929), 381Google Scholar; Kruta, , “Current Problems in History of Medicine”, loc. cit. (7), 436.Google Scholar
27 See chapters 10, 11, 12 in De phaenomeno generali et fundamentan, Opera omnia, i, 348–358.Google Scholar
28 “so muss die vitale Chemie das Verhalten der erregbaren Faser gegen alle Objecte der äusseren Sinnenwelt zu untersuchen.” This sentence forms part of the quotation from Humboldt, A.'s Versuche über die gereizte Muskel- und Nervenfaser (Posen & Berlin, 1797), ii, 55–56Google Scholar, which Purkyně and Valentin use as the motto for their chapter dealing with the effects of chemical agents on ciliary motion (Opera omnia, i, 350)Google Scholar. On Humboldt's conception of “vital chemistry” and “experimental physiology”, see Beck, H., Alexander von Humboldt (Wiesbaden, 1959), i, 103.Google Scholar
29 Rivera, , op. cit. (3), 71.Google Scholar
30 Ibid.
31 L. Hill writes clearly: “Purkinje and Valentine [sic] observed, says Sharpey, that watery infusions of opium, belladonna, capsicum, catechu, aloes, musk, gum arabic, acetate of morphia, nitrate of strychnia had no effect on the cilia. Movement was arrested by a 10 per cent hydrocyanic acid solution, by acid, alkali, and salt in abnormal concentration, and by a certain concentration of alcohol, ether, sugar, empyrheumatic oil, creosote, muriate of baryta, sulphate of quinine, infusions of pyrethrum, and muriate of veratrum.” The Lancet, ccxv (2) (1928), 803–804.Google Scholar
32 Gray, J., Ciliary Movement (Cambridge, 1928), 94.Google Scholar
33 Op. cit. (13). Müller was doubtful whether Purkyně's and Valentin's experiments really proved that nervous activity does not affect ciliary movement (see Arch. Anat. Physiol. wiss. Med. (Müller), (1836), clv-clvii). It is interesting to note what modern research has to say on the control of ciliary activity: “It is difficult to be certain whether there are any metazoan cilia which are without any form of control, though there may be some cilia with cleansing or respiratory functions that are continuously active … In no case can we be certain of the means by which the control of cilia is exerted.” Sleigh, , op. cit. (2), 121, 124.Google Scholar
34 Opera omnia, i, chapter 9.
35 Rivera, , op. cit. (3), 12.Google Scholar
36 Opera omnia, ii, 153.Google Scholar Valentin in his answer to Mayer points out that ciliary motion was observable with microscopes magnifying 80–120 times and even with the unaided eye. See Repertorium Anat. Physiol (Valentin), i (1837), 150.Google Scholar
37 Hughes, , op. cit. (10), 12.Google Scholar
38 Kraft was a pupil of P. Grützner who was close to Valentin (see “Valentin-Festschrift”, Physiologische Studien (Leipzig, 1882)Google Scholar ed. P. Grützner & B. Luchsinger). Under Grützner Kraft worked on ciliary motion and tried to find means of recording it. Referring to the representation of cilia in motion as shown in Fig. 1 he wrote:
“Zeichnet man sich, wie dies in ähnlicher Art schon Purkinje und Valentin thaten, die Haare 1–20 … im Kreis auf die Bildscheibe eines Purkinje' sehen Stroboskopes mit 20 Schlitzen, so dass man beim Drehen der Scheiben eine grössere Anzahl Haare auf einmal übersieht…” Kraft, H., Arch. ges. Physiol. (Pflüger), xlvii (1890), 205.Google Scholar
39 Opera omnia, ii, 93–94.Google Scholar
40 Valentin, , op. dt (16), 503.Google Scholar Doppier is usually credited first to have suggested (1845) the use of a stroboscope for the study of ciliary movement. See Martius, , Arch. Physiol. (du Bois Raymond), viii (1884), 456–460Google Scholar; also Harting, P., Das Mikroskop (Braunschweig, 1859), 405.Google Scholar
41 Opera omnia, ii, 151Google Scholar; Valentin, , op. cit. (16), 513.Google Scholar
42 Opera omnia, i, 345.Google Scholar
43 “…weil die Schwere und der Widerstand des Kiemenstücks als unberechnete Factoren von wesentlicher Bedeutung sind…” Valentin, , op. cit. (16), 506.Google Scholar
44 Opera omnia, i, 339Google Scholar; Opera omnia, iii, 19.Google Scholar
45 Valentin, , op. cit. (16), 502–503.Google Scholar
46 Opera omnia, iii, 19.Google Scholar This was also the view of Müller, J., Arch. Anat. Pfysiol. wiss. Med. (Müller) (1836), clvGoogle Scholar, and Henle, , op. cit. (21), 256–257.Google Scholar
47 Opera omnia, ii, 151.Google Scholar Cf. Gray, , op. cit. (32), 87Google Scholar; Sleigh, , op. cit. (3), 196.Google Scholar
48 Illustrations are from the paper in Nova Acta Physico-Medica, op. cit. (12). They resemble illustrations in Valentin's manuscript Histiogenia as reproduced by Müllener, op. cit. (4).
49 Opera omnia, ii, 151.Google Scholar
50 “Motus ille circa axin circularis, quern principem posuimus, aut eo efficitur, quod irritabilis quacdam vel muscularis substantia in bulbillo contineatur aut in fibris illis sit posita…” Opera omnia, i, 340.Google Scholar
51 “Motus vibratorius nee a voluntate, nee a systemate nervoso, nee a musculorum majorum actione dependet.” Opera omnia, i, 361.Google Scholar
52 Opera omnia, iii, 16–18.Google Scholar J. Henle already noticed that Purkyně and Valentin changed their view on the muscular basis of cilia. Henle, , op. cit. (21), 264.Google Scholar
53 “Es muss daher jene Metamorphose nicht sowohl eine morphologische, ab eine molecolare sein, und es liesse sich z.B. hiernach erwarten, dass eine Flimmermembran mehr Kohlensäure und Wasser ausscheide, als eine nicht flimmernde Haut.” Valentin, G., op. cit. (16), 509.Google Scholar
54 Opera omnia, ii, 153.Google Scholar
55 Opera omnia, i, 359.Google Scholar
56 Rivera, , op. cit. (3), 84–89.Google Scholar
57 Valentin, , op. cit. (16), 515.Google Scholar
58 Opera omnia, i, 361.Google Scholar Cf. also Valentin, G., Repertoriumt Anat. Physiol. (Valentin), i (1837), 57.Google Scholar
59 Frankenberger, Z., Časopis lékař českých, cvi (1957), 1364.Google Scholar
60 Quoted by Rotschuh, K. E., Physiologie der Wandel, ihrer Konzepte, Probleme und Methoden vom 16. bis 19. Jahrhundert (Freiburg and Munich, 1968), 302, 334.Google Scholar
61 Cf. also what C. F. A. Pantin writes on the development of experimental zoology in his contribution to the “Sir James Gray Festschrift”, edited by Ramsay, J. A. and Wigglesworth, V. B., The Cell and the Organism (Cambridge, 1961), 1–8.Google Scholar
62 “—sed eo, quod motus vibratorius utriusque generis res sit, et morphologici et physiologici…” Opera omnia, i, 362.Google Scholar
