duantext

Preliminary Analysis of Biological Enzymes

Originating from Micro-organisms

Duan Xiu-Bin
Binzhou city, Shandong province, China
Mobile: 86 13793888426 Email: bbfactor@126.com

Why could the ingestive materials not actually be directly transformed into the
human or animal body and what roles would micro-organisms play in the material
transformation in vivo and in vitro? Through the general principle of material
transformation, grasping the inequality a + 0 ≠ c and reasoning it, this manuscript
yielded the concepts of the biological enzymes originating from micro-organisms
and micro-organisms playing a medium role in the material transformation in
living nature, and therefore filled up the theoretical empty space in the material
transformation in vivo.

Tags: biological enzymes, micro-organisms, material transformation, medium,

empty space.

In the life sciences field, people have generally realized the important significance of the
biological enzymes to life, and regarded all the life activities arising from the enzyme
catalysis, but about the source of the enzymes, the versions are different. This problem
would be the crux related to whether the ingestive material could be directly transformed
into the human or animal body and what roles the micro-organisms would play in the
material transformation in the nature and in vivo, and has to be given a deep exploration.

Ⅰ. Cognitive situation of biological enzymes

Summing up the various existing views of authoritative organization, specialized

research field and individual front research, the sources of the biological enzymes might
be induced as follows:

1. Authoritative organization

The traditional theory, in a dominant position by far, adheres to the doctrine of the
enzymes coming from the self-synthesis. Although sometimes making a passing mention
that the micro-organisms could produce enzymes in the large intestine, which are not

1
 duantext

thought too many significances, the biological enzyme and the micro-organisms are
always separated in interpretation (1)

This doctrine holds that the digestive enzymes come from the secretions of digestive
glands, which are the confluence of the lyoenzyme remainders secreted by the somatic
cells, and the ones in the intestinal tract are “most resulting from the sloughed and
disintegrated colonic mucosal cells (1)”. The Chinese naming such as pepsin and
amylopsin etc. and their English interpretations in other countries fully reflect this idea.
Although the United States is at the leading position in the life sciences field, it is no
different from the mainstream view of other countries when introducing the large
intestine function in the cited informations at the FDA web site, reflecting what they
followed is still the theoretical framework of the biological enzyme coming from the
body’s own synthesis. In short, the digestive enzymes in the body are synthesized by the
somatic cells themselves. This is the authoritative interpretation in current national
regulations and the general understanding, and of course, medical theory etc. treat it as
their basis and have their extension.

2. Research field

The majority of the articles fall in with the views of the authoritative organization, that is
that the enzymes in animal (including human) bodies come from their own synthesis.
However, many articles have explored part of the enzymes come from food, and the
micro-organisms in vivo could also produce them. Although the facts are clear and the
evidences are conclusive, they does not break the traditional theoretical framework.
General speaking, the interpretations on in vivo enzyme sources are still different and
unable to agree which is right.

3. Front research

Japan's well-known gastroenterologist and surgeon, Hiromi Shinya, wrote a book < The
Enzyme Factor > on the basis of a large number of cases, which elaborated the
important role of the enzymes in the life activity. With regard to the enzyme sources, He
believed that the enzymes in the human body had over 5000 kinds, while over 3000
kinds made by the intestinal bacteria (4). In substance he had denied the theory that the
enzymes came from the animal body's own synthesis, which was a very great progress
in this scientific issue. But where were the enzymes in the food from? Hiromi Shinya did
not have a continuous exploration, and did not give it a theoretical interpretation.

Ⅱ. Analyzing the contradictions

2
 duantext

There are three versions in total on the enzyme sources: self-synthesis, transfer by food
chain and synthesis by in vivo micro-organisms. The contradictions among them
reflected the obvious characteristics of its history and academic development. In the
initial stage that the digestive enzymes were found, the people observed them secreted
from the various digestive glands, and therefore established the theoretical framework of
the digestive enzymes. In this stage, there were no different views and all of the people
were convinced of the doctrine of self-synthesis beyond a reasonable doubt. But with the
constant discovery and in-depth research, the people discovered in vivo microorganisms
could also produce the enzymes, and the evidences were conclusive and unable to
deny, then forced the authoritative organizations had to recognize them. Because it was
only a version that enzymes were produced by microorganisms and transferred by food,
unable to deny the doctrine of self-synthesis and to break through the traditional theory,
so some regulations attempted to unify the contemporary research results on the basis
of adhering to the framework of the traditional theory, having to mention, in passing, the
micro-organisms were also involved in the material transformation and generated
enzymes while explaining the digestion of food. However, since the contemporary
research results and the traditional viewpoint did not belong to the resulting products of
the same cognitive stage in basic theory from the root (one is the biological enzymes
originating from micro-organisms, and another is the biological enzymes originating from
animal’s own body synthesis), the result was that both could not but say and did not tell
clearly about the contemporary research results in the framework of the traditional
theory. To admit them would be equal to deny the traditional theory itself, and to bring
them into the framework of the traditional theory would be mismatchable fundamentally
and unable to solve them in together, so usually had to introduce them separately (1/2).
That image comparison would be, to allow them to stand up would be higher than the
framework and to let them sit down would not have their suitable seats, then had to get
them in a squat state to play a walk-on role. Such an outcome could only be vague and
contradictory with each other.

Ⅲ. Solving the contradictions.

Using exclusive method, the enzyme sources might be traced very easily.

1， a + 0 ≠ c（ excluding the self-synthesis doctrine）

The self-synthesis doctrine could be excluded from theory and reality.

Theory side: If the enzymes in the digestive juice were synthesized by somatic cells,
the principle would equate that the ingestive materials might be directly transformed into
the body materials. If they were the direct transformation, no matter how much animal
digestive enzymes might be secreted for breaking down and synthesizing, those

3
 duantext

enzymes would be still derived from the materials (including animal bodies) themselves,
just as they would carry out the transformation by themselves. In that case, it would be a
funny equation such as “a + 0 = c” or “animal foods = animals”, which does not conform
to both mathematical algorithms and the law of material transformation. In this inequality,
it is obviously in the absense of a necessary addend, and in the law of material
transformation, it is obviously in the absense of a vital medium.

In the article <Cells Suffering Hunger>, the micro-organisms have been identified as a
necessary key element in the material transformation in vivo and in vitro, but they are not
reflected in the above equation. It does not conform to both the situation and the reason.

Reality side: It is proved that the cellulases in the livestock’s stomach were secreted by
micro-organisms. Humanity also belongs to the animal, and the material transformation
in the animal bodies should not have two distinct contradictory interpretations.

2, c-a=?(tracing the sneaker)

In the material transformation in vivo, we have already negated the self-synthesis

doctrine through the inequality “a + 0 = c”. Then we have to obtain an addend to correct
it, and to find out the sneaker as the medium.

In the body, there are only two kinds of foreign materials: one is the ingested materials
and the another is micro-organisms. Because the ingested materials could not act as
both a and b in “a + b = c”, otherwise the equation would be “a + a = c” and same as “a +
0 = c”. So the choice as b in the equation would only be the micro-organisms, and there
are no other competitors.

On account of no micro-organism in the upper digestive tract, their multiplication only

below the small intestine and the more their quantities the closer to the anus, their
sneaking channel must be the anus without doubt. Just as long as a animal was born,
microorganisms would begin to sneak into its large intestine from the anus. after a few
hours they would multiplicate in large quantities and vary in the suitable temperature and
culture medium, in order to meet the requirements of the digestion for its body.

Thus, the inequality “a + 0 ≠ c” would be corrected reasonably: a = organic matter, b =

micro-organisms and c = transformed materials. Therefore, micro-organisms would be
the necessary medium in the material transformation in vivo by the nature of the case.

3, Enzymes transfered along the food chain

Let’s still use the exclusive method.

4
 duantext

Enzymes in plant body. As the material transformation in the animal body needs to
conform to the equation “a + b = c”, then plants must also follow it. In other words, the
plants can not synthesize the enzymes by themselves, and their in vivo enzymes should
come from the micro-organisms, too. Because the "digestive organs " of plants are not in
their bodies, but in soil, the plant enzymes are naturally traced to soil.

Enzymes in soil. According to the principle that the “enzymes are generated within the
organic cells [4] ", the organic cells in soil are only micro-organisms except the
organisms for their fermentation base. Thus the soil enzymes are also generated from
micro-organisms. It conforms to the role of micro-organisms in the material
transformation in nature. Meanwhile the equation “a + b = c” could be proved again.

Ⅳ. Conclusion

In the final analysis, all the enzymes in the animal and plant bodies, whether generated
by the micro-organisms in vivo or transfered along the food chain, are derived from the
micro-organisms. In the three main species of living things (plants, animals and micro-
organisms) in the biosphere, it is only the micro-organisms are able to generate the
enzymes.

Whether according to the data provided by Hiromi Shinya (＞3000 in vivo / ＞2000 from
outside), it could affirm the microbial enzymes in vivo at 3 / 5 in total quantity in the
human body? It needs to add more data for a confirmation, as the data in this aspect are
renovated frequently. However, according to the data he provided, the enzymes
produced by the micro-organisms in human body seem to occupy the superior position
in the total enzymes in vivo.

This answer is the crux of the issue, and also is the key to explain a series of the
contradictions (including the ones in <Cells Suffering Hunger> and < Traditional
Biological Chain Theory Is Worth Discussing>), because it has put together the
biological enzymes and micro-organisms, eliminated their isolated state each other in
research and application, moved the focal point from the enzymes to the micro-
organisms, and given them a small proper space in the material transformation in vivo.
The enzymes only are the phenomenon to promote the movement of life substance, but
the micro-organisms are its very essence.

The conclusion can be born. It may affirm that the ingestive materials are impossible to
be directly transformed into the animal body materials in the material transformation in

5
 duantext

vivo. In the transforming process, only via a medium it can initiate a transforming relation
between the ingestive materials and animal body. Otherwise, the transforming activities
are impossible to be carried out. To occupy this role are just the micro-organisms. Only
to accept the medium role of the micro-organisms in the material transformation may
correct the equation from “a + 0 = c” to “a + b = c”. Therefore this corrected equation
would fill up the present theoretical empty space in vivo.

References:

［1］,Latest Complete Collection, National Food Safety Quality Identification and Test
Standard, The Web Site of Foodmate，available at
http://bbs.foodmate.net/viewthread.php?tid=115968&extra=&page=1，2007-5-2。
［2］, Digestion / Micro-organisms, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia，(22 May
2009 / 25 May 2009), available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestion /
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro-organism.
［3］ (China) Sun Hongxin, Zhen Erying, Cellulase in Animal Production，available at
http://www.chinafeedonline.com/china/info/news/show_news_detail.jsp?id=83544，200
4-02-12。
［4］, (Japan) Hiromi Shinya, The Enzyme Factor, available at
http://www.counciloakbooks.com/client/client_images/Spring2007.pdf.

First draft: 21 Feb. 2007. Revised for many times.