Preliminary Analysis of Biological Enzymes Originating from Micro-organisms

Abstract: “Why the ingested substances cannot be directly transformed into the human or animal body…” and “what roles do the microorganisms play in the substance transformation in vivo and in vitro?” are some of the questions this article attempts to discuss. At present, only a partial understanding of the enzymes produced by the animal’s own body exists. With this article, a more comprehensive summary is presented through a profound analysis and discussion of the present research progress in enzymes and microorganisms and by applying the basic principle of substance transformation. A more reasonable perception about the biological enzymes originating from microorganisms and the microorganisms playing an intermediate role in the in vivo substance transformation is provided, thereby, filling up a theoretical empty space in the in vivo substance transformation. 

Background 

In the life sciences, It seems that the problem on the source of biological enzymes has been solved, that is they come from the plant and animal cells themselves. But according to the continuous discoveries from various aspects, this problem seems still pending. 

At present, the general situation in the world is that the exploitation on the enzyme sources is still continuing. Although there are some differences in the relevance regulations and theory teaching in various countries, they are basically at the same cognition stage, and the traditional basic theory that the enzymes come from the body’s own synthesis is still being applied. The relevant disciplines are still the same as before, too. 

Now let’s have a look at what kind of conclusion can be made by trying to use the mathematical problem-solving method. 

1. Known 

1.1 Three doctrines of source: 

Summing up the various viewpoints of the authoritative organization, the specialized research field and the individual research front, three doctrines about the enzyme source have been generalized as follows: 

1.1.1 Doctrine of self-synthesis. This doctrine holds that the digestive enzymes come from the secretions of digestive gland, which are the confluence of the lyoenzyme remainders secreted by the body cells, and the ones in the intestinal tract are “most resulting from the sloughed and disintegrated colonic mucosal cells (5)”. 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 viewpoint of other countries when introducing the large intestine function in the cited information at the FDA web site (referring to “Solution 1, Reason of contradictions among ‘three doctrines of source’” and “Solution 2.3″), 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 body 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. This doctrine has been occupying the dominant position in the relevant disciplines. 

1.1.2 Doctrine of synthesis by in vivo microorganisms. Although some specialized research somewhat involved in this study, the typical is still Hiromi’s theory. He believed that the enzymes in the human body had over 5000 kinds, while about 3000 kinds made by the intestinal bacteria (4). 

1.1.3 Doctrine of transfer by food chain. Hiromi believed, except the over 3000 kinds made by the intestinal bacteria, a portion of the rest came from the food (4). That is coming from the transfer of the food chain. 

Other information showed that the carnivores such as lions usually ate their prey’s internal organs first (6) because the prey’s internal organs were rich in enzymes. 

The U.S. Wikipedia encyclopedia introduced that many vitamins as coenzyme were unable to be synthesized by human body itself, and needed to be acquired from the diet (3). 

Doctrines 1.1.2/1.1.3 are in an actively exploring stage and have not yet been approved completely by the regulations, but they are being accepted by more and more people. 

1.2 Related information 

1.2.1 The biology textbooks of middle-school explained clearly that none of the chemical elements constituting living body was endemic to living nature. 

1.2.2The cellulases in the herbivorous livestock and poultry bodies came from the microorganisms in vivo (7). 

1.2.3Microorganisms existed in the digestive tract of carnivores (8). 

1.2.4 Microorganisms existed in the digestive tract of insects (9). 

1.2.5 Also, a lot of beneficial microorganisms existed in the digestive tract of aquatic animals (10). 

1.2.6 “In the digestive process, the more enzymes in the foods were broken down into polypeptides and aminophenols for the small intestine to further absorb. The enzymic quantity would be varied on the needs of the body. The source enzyme — an unspecialized prototype enzyme able to synthesize various enzymes had already been reserved in the body (11)”. 

1.2.7 “The results of experiment demonstrated that pancreatic kininogenase could be significantly absorbed from the rat colon (12)”. 

1.2.8 “The recipe of microorganisms is very broad. All the available nutrition by animals and plants could be utilized by microorganisms. Large numbers of the unavailable nutrition by animals and plants, even highly toxic substances, could also be regarded as the delicacies of microorganisms (13)”. 

1.2.9″Where there is life, there are enzymes (14)”. 

1.2.10 Microorganisms would “swiftly evolve (via natural selection) to survive in new environments and respond to environmental stresses（15）” 

1.2.11″Enzymes show a high specificity to the catalyzed response types and substrate species (2)”. 

1.2.12 The enzyme “is made within the cells of living things (4)”. 

1.2.13 In the mineral metabolism, plants absorbed a certain amount of enzymes from the soil (16). 

1.2.14 With yeast extract, German scientist Eduard Buchner successfully carried out a cell-free fermentation in the absence of living yeast cells, thus confirmed “enzymes could function outside a living cell (3)”. It demonstrated that the enzymes would be free from their mother cells, and also should suggest the enzymes might wander inside the living thing’s body away from their mother cells. 

1.2.15 “Enzymes are more than just chemical catalysts since they appear to work at a biological and subtle energy level also. They can be considered the interface between inanimate and life forms, that is, what is responsible for turning organic matter into ‘life’ (14).”

2. Solution 

2.1 a + 0 ≠ c 

In Known 1.1.1 / 1.2.1 of this article, the doctrine of self-synthesis could be excluded. 

Theory side: If the enzymes in the digestive juice were synthesized by body cells, its principle would equate that the ingested substances might be directly transformed into the body substances, and does not conform to the substance transformation law. If it was a direct transformation, no matter how much animal digestive enzymes might be secreted for breaking down and synthesizing, these enzymes would be still derived from the substances themselves, just as they would carry out the transformation by themselves. In that case, it would be an illogical equation:  “a + 0 = c” or “animal foods = animals”, which is obviously in the absence of a vital medium. 

Reality side: According to Known 1.2.2, the cellulases in the livestock’s stomach were secreted by microorganisms. Humans also belong to animals, and the substance transformation in the animal bodies should not have two distinct contradictory explanations. 

Reason of contradictions among “three doctrines of source”: Refer to “Solve 2.3″. Some contemporary research results and experimental data on enzymes and microorganisms are incontrovertible and undeniable. They force the authoritative organizations could not but recognize them. Therefore, some regulations attempt to unify the contemporary research results on the basis of adhering to the framework of the traditional theory, having to mention, in passing, the microorganisms are also involved in the substance transformation and generate enzymes while explaining the digestion of food. However, since the contemporary research results and the traditional viewpoint do not belong to the resulting products of the same cognitive stage in basic theory from the root (one is the biological enzymes originating from microorganisms, and another is the biological enzymes originating from animal’s own body synthesis), the result is 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 mismatched fundamentally and unable to solve them in together, so usually has to introduce them separately (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 has to get them in a squat state to play a walk-on role. Such an outcome can only be vague and contradictory with each other. 

2.2. In vivo micro-organisms could originate enzymes. In reference to Known 1.1.2 /1.2.2 /1.2.3 /1.2.4 / 1.2.5, the microorganisms existed in all the herbivorous, carnivorous, omnivorous and aquatic animals and insects bodies, and all of them have the conditions and realities to generate the enzymes by the microorganisms. 

2.3. Animal intestinal tract should absorb the enzymes generated by in vivo microorganisms while absorbing the ones from food, and then make them take part in an enzyme cycle in vivo. In section 1.2.6, following the law of decomposition and synthesis, the enzymes might be re-synthesized from the decomposed enzyme materials according to the digestive needs and have their circulation in vivo. 

The cited information at FDA Web site introduced, “The principal functions of the large intestine are to concentrate, store, and excrete food wastes”. It did not include the absorptive function. Furthermore, it says “The colon contains large numbers of bacteria, which produce enzymes that act on the remaining food residues, fiber, and cells and mucus sloughed from the upper intestinal tract (2)”. It did not say that these enzymes were absorbed by the colon or discharged with the feces, nor it mentions their whereabouts. Perhaps the meaning of the cited information might be understood as the colonic absorption of the enzymes included in its secondary function, but “The Enzyme Factor” of Hiromi elaborated that the majority of enzymes were produced by the microorganisms in vivo and furthermore they mainly gathered in the large intestine. It shows that the large intestine not only has the absorptive function of the enzymes, but also certainly not the secondary function. On the other hand, most of the digestion and absorption in the body occur in the small intestine (2), and however most of the enzymes in vivo are produced by the microorganisms in the large intestine, it could only tell us that most of the enzymes excreted by various digestive glands come from their being absorbed in the large intestine. At the same time it also shows that the enzymes produced by the microorganisms in the large intestine are involved in the enzyme cycle in the body. 

In Known 1.2.7 regarding the test of the rats, it has obtained an affirmative answer that the enzymes could be absorbed in the animal colon. Their absorption in the human colon could be determined on the whole through the theoretical deduction and inference. 

2.4. Enzymes should belong to the secretions of the microorganisms acting on various substances. About the enzymes in the human body, some said that is more than 1000 kinds, some said that is more than 3000 kinds, and Hiromi Shinya said that is more than 5000 kinds. Let us not discuss the authenticity of these data, but first look at these data would suggest to us the problems. Whether actually is there over 1000 or 5000 kinds of these enzymes in everybody at all events, or are they only a cumulative record on researches one by one? Whether actually is it so in all the Asian, or American, or even all the nationalities of the world, or would there be some difference among them? Whether actually are both of the elderly and children the same, or would be some difference following their growth in years?Whether actually are both of the ancients and modern people similar, or would be continuously changing with the times moving? Whether actually is it like in both of winter and summer, or would be some ups and downs according to the seasons? According to the characteristic of the substrate specificity, all these problems and variables perhaps could not be interpreted only relying on the body’s own adaptability, and it is moving closer more and more to the microorganisms, who are the unique ones to have this variable ability. 

In Known 1.2.8 / 1.2.9 / 1.2.10 / 1.2.11, the microorganisms are ubiquitous and their foods are all-inclusive. In the biosphere，”Wherever there is life, enzymes always exist”. How similar the living environments of the microorganisms and enzymes are?! This high similarity of their living environments is by no means an accidental coincidence. The super adaptive capacity of the microorganisms to substances and their characteristics of swift evolution would cause none of the substances existing in the natural world could not be coped with by them. In particular the organic matter could be more easily coped with by them, while autotrophic microorganisms are converting the inorganic matter into organic, their another cooperative army—heterotrophic microorganisms could convert it back naturally, because spear and shield are the two parts of the unity of opposite. The enzymatic specificity shows that the substrate species would decide the number of different enzymes. Thus it might be concluded that the substances are the basic condition to induce microorganisms to generate, the environment is the important factor to induce microorganisms to vary and the enzymes are their secretions while they act on the various substances. 

2.5. Soil enzymes should come from microorganisms.In Known 1.2.12/1.2.13, there is no doubt that the enzymes in the soil should come from microorganisms, because the enzymes can only be produced within the cells of living things. On the basis to exclude the possibility to synthesize the enzymes by the animals (including subterranean animals) themselves and plants (see “Formula Derivation of Biological Enzymes Originating from Microorganisms”), the microorganisms are the only cells in the soil and the inorganic substances in the soil can never self-generate them. 

Take the edaphon for instance. If some plants had been carrying on a circulation in unceasing life and death in one place every year or every time period, the underground substance types and the microorganism types would also be able to maintain normality on the whole. If there were no microorganisms in normality, the plant would be impossible to transform their dead twigs and fallen leaves into the substances for their regenerating. If there were not the same dead twigs and fallen leaves, the edaphon would not be able to maintain normality. Both of them complement each other and mutually preconditional. In this pure theory circulation, when the microorganisms reserved various substances in the soil for the need of the plants synthesis, they would also reserve the enzymes for what the plants would synthesize to be decomposed. While absorbing these substances for their synthesis, the plants would absorb the enzymes into their bodies for the decomposition of them, which would become one of the sources for the enzyme cycle. Just like the law of the unity of opposites in philosophy, the spear would be naturally formed while formed a shield. Otherwise, it could not be called a contradiction and contrary to the philosophy principle. 

Of course, the extracellular enzymes produced by edaphon must be certainly broken down before being absorbed by plants. Exactly how they are broken down and what substances they would be broken down into for the absorption of plants, even how to synthesize the necessary enzymes in the plant body? That needs to have a further discuss. But it is a major matter of principle that the soil enzymes come from microorganisms, and can not allow to have the least neglect. 

2.6. Enzymes should be transferred upward along biological chain. In reference to Solution 2.3/2.5, by the same token, the enzymes produced by the microorganisms to break down organic substances in the animal bodies would be involved in the circulation of the biological chain together with the other organic substances. 

In Known 1.1.3/1.2.6/1.2.14, they reflect the possibility and realities that the enzymes could be transferred upward along the biological chain. 

In the three sides of possibility, reality and theoretical deduction, all of them proved that the enzymes could be transferred upward successively along the biological chain. 

2.7. Enzymes should be considered as a medium role in the substance transformation. In Known 1.2.15, enzymes could be “responsible for turning organic matter into ‘life’ ” and “be considered the interface between inanimate and life forms”. This section of words shows the enzymes would play a medium role from the angle of the life synthesis. Now that the enzymes have been considered the “interface” between organic matter and life forms, according to the principle of symmetry, the enzymes should be considered the “interface” from life to organic matter. then according to the confirmed theory that the substance transformation from inorganic to organic and from organic to inorganic effected by microorganisms, it formed a clue for us:

              microorganisms        enzymes           enzymes        microorganisms
inorganic matter—organic matter—life?      life—organic matter—inorganic matter.

If this clue could not yet prompt us to think of the substance transformation law of inorganic – organic – inorganic and could not yet prompt us to link the enzymes with the microorganisms as well as the relationship between them, then we would really be too blind, too numb. If now we did not look on both of them as the medium in substance transformation, then we would be too unreasonable. 

Let’s have a further analysis from another point of view. Based on the above aspects, there are two key elements in the substance transformation in vivo and in vitro. One is the substances themselves, which belongs to the transformed object, and another is microorganisms, which belongs to the transforming subject. Both of them are indispensable. Now that the substance transformation can not be separated from the participation of microorganisms, they do not belong to the transformed object though they are matter, too. So they can only play the intermediate role in the substance transformation in vivo and in vitro, 

Synthesizing the solving process, it is somewhat too verbose. Through the conclusion in “Cells Suffering Hunger” that microorganisms belong to the necessary key element in the substance transformation and the equation a + 0 ≠ c in the “Solution 2.1″, we could deduce that microorganisms play an intermediate role in the substance transformation in vivo and in vitro, because microorganisms do not belong to the transformed object, but the transforming subject, and they can only be the medium. Furthermore, according to Hiromi Shinya’s conclusion that “ones made (by intestinal bacteria) within the body and ones coming from outside in the form of food (4)”, it shows that both of human and animal bodies can not generate enzymes. At the same time, Hiromi Shinya’s conclusion also stated that the majority of the enzymes in the human body, which could be clarified, come from the intestinal bacteria. Then the minority left in the food, which could not be clarified, could be naturally traced to the soil microorganisms according to the principle that the enzymes could only be produced inside cells. Such reasoning is easy and clear, and good for understanding. If reasoned according to the equation a + 0 ≠ c, it would be more concise. However, this is a very serious problem, which involved is extremely important, so we can not help but adopt the above verbose solving process with basis and reasoning. 

3. Answer 

In reference to “Solution 2.1—2.6″,the sources of the enzymes in the animal digestive juice are not more than two ways: 

3.1. In vivo microorganisms. On the basis of the partial decomposition and reduction of the foods in the small intestine, the microorganisms would carry on a re-processing on them, which difficult to be decomposed, in the large intestine, and the enzymes produced by microorganisms also join the enzyme cycle in vivo. 

3.2. Microorganisms from outside (including edaphon and the microorganisms in the other animal bodies who will soon become foods). In the process of the decomposition and synthesis of the organic substances by the microorganisms in the soil and the herbivorous and carnivorous animal bodies, the generated enzymes or their original substances are transferred along the biological chain. 

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 microorganisms in human body seem to occupy the superior position in the total enzymes in vivo. 

Since both of the two kinds of the enzymes, ones are transferred by the biological chain and ones are produced by the in vivo microorganisms, are absorbed into blood to join the enzyme cycle in vivo, the essential difference of their sources is only produced by the microorganisms in vivo or in vitro. 

4. Conclusion 

In the final analysis, all the enzymes in the animal and plant bodies, whether generated by the microorganisms in vivo or transferred along the biological chain, are derived from microorganisms. In the three main species of living things (plants, animals and microorganisms) in the biosphere, it is only microorganisms are able to generate the enzymes. Then, if we had a common citing among the theory, equation a + b = c and reality and a backward reasoning from these three aspects, it might confirm the conclusion from different angles that the biological enzymes source from microorganisms. 

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 biology enzymes and microorganisms, eliminated their isolated state each other in research and application, moved the focal point from the enzymes to microorganisms, and given them a small proper space in the substance transformation in vivo. The enzymes only are the phenomenon to promote the motion of life substances, but microorganisms are its very essence. 

A conclusion could come from “Solution 2.1″. It may affirm that the ingested substances are impossible to be directly transformed into the animal body substances in the substance transformation in vivo. In the transforming process, only via a medium it can initiate a transforming relation between the ingested substances and animal body. Otherwise, the transforming activities are impossible to be carried out. To occupy this role are just microorganisms. Only to accept the medium role of the microorganisms in the substance 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.

First draft: Feb 27. 2007.   Revised for many times.

References:

1, Digestion and Absorption of Food, The Web Site of Biology-Online.org. (17 May 2005), available at http://www.biology-online.org/9/16_digestion_absorption_food.htm.

2, In Colon of Gastrointestinal Diseases, National Library of Medicine’s Profiles in Science site?available at http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/NN/B/C/R/C/_/nnbcrc.pdf

3, Enzyme, Wikipedia Web Site (13 November 2008)?available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme.

4, (Japan) Hiromi Shinya, The Enzyme Factor, The Web Site of Council Oak Books (2007), available at http://www.counciloakbooks.com/client/client_images/Spring2007.pdf.

5, Latest Complete Collection, National Food Safety Quality Identification and Test Standard, The Web Site of bbs.foodmate.net          (02 May 2007), available at http://bbs.foodmate.net/viewthread.php?tid=115968&extra=&page=1.

6, Blane Klemek, Mountain lions are rarely seen, Northland Outdoors Web Site (19 October 2008), available at http://www.northlandoutdoors.com/index_articles.cfm?id=18903&property_id=3.

7, Animal Nutrition and Digestion, The Web Site of The University of Vermont (30 August 2007), available at http://asci.uvm.edu/course/asci001/digest.html

8, Comparison Between the Digestive Tracts of a Carnivore, a Herbivore and Man, Second-opinions Web Site, available at http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/carn_herb_comparison2.html

9, Intracellular symbioses in insects, Department of Biology, The Web Site of University of York, available at http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/biol/units/symbiosis/intra-symbiosis.html#a

10, IN Probiotics used in AquAculture of Aquaculture species profit from probiotics, Reed Business bv. Web Site (2007), available at http://www.allaboutfeed.net/aquaculture/id601-27764/aquaculture_species_profit_from_probiotics.html

11, (Japan) Hiromi Shinya, The pivotal role of enzyme, Sina Web Site (31 August 2007), available at http://book.sina.com.cn/nzt/live/liv/bushbdhf/20.shtml.

12, Tang Yue, Luan Libiao, Absorption of Pancreatic Kininogenase from the Perfused Rat Colon?JOURNAL OF CHINA PHARMACEUTICAL  UNIVERSITY?2 (2001), available at http://epub.cnki.net/grid2008/detail.aspx?filename=ZGYD200102011&dbname=CJFD2001

13, Basic Knowledge of Microorganisms, Microorganism Museum, The Web Site of Popular Science Panorama of China ?16 October 2003?, available at http://www.kepu.net.cn/gb/lives/microbe/microbe_basic/200310160018.html

14, Live Foods and Live Enzymes?primordia.net web site, available at http://www.primordia.net/food/CGB Live Foods and Live Enzymes.htm

15, Microorganism, Wikipedia Web Site (24 December 2008), available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbe.

16, Importance of Soil Enzymes?The Web Site of The Ohio State University, available at http://snr.osu.edu/current/courses/SS760/Section02_Graphs.pdf