GROWTH INDUCED BY DAMAGE
17
Damage with a heated needle does not result in an increase in mitotic
activity in the contralateral kidney although there is an increase around
the damaged areas (Table I). This suggests that the growth-promoting
effects of damage on the contralateral kidney do not result from the loss
of mass, since kidney mass is lost after damage with a heated needle,
but there is no increased mitotic activity in the contralateral kidney.
TABLE I
Mitotic Activity in the Left Kidney Cortex after Treatment to the Right Kidney
(Mice Treated with Colchicine)"
Right kidney
Males
Females
Days
No. mitoses
No. mitoses
postNo. -
- No.
treatof
100 000 cells
of
100 000 cells
Treatment
ment
mice
(Av. ± SE m )»
mice
(Av. ± SE m )
&
None
2
25
32.7 ± 5.4
22
16.7 ± 2.8
Sham operation
2
10
150.2 ± 39.1
8
20.6 + 2.4
Damage (multiple needle
2
12
321.7 ± 78.0
9
56.7 ± 11.8
insertions)
Unilateral nephrectomy
2
29
352.7 ± 46.0
17
80.6 ± 14.9
Damage (multiple hot needle
2
11
34.5 ± 6.8
insertions)
° From Argyris and Trimble (1964b).
6
Average ± standard error of the mean.
They are probably caused by release of stimulating substances. [Further
evidence that the loss of mass produced by damaging the kidney is not
responsible for the increase in mitotic activity in the contralateral kidney
will be presented in the section on the mechanism of damage-induced
growth (Section IV,A,2).] Therefore, damage can result in proliferative
effects that are systemic.
Since damage to one of a pair of organs can lead to mitotic stimulation
in the other member, we may ask if damage of an organ can have growthpromoting effects on other organs. Few investigations attempt to answer
this question. We have found that partial hepatectomy (T. S. Argyris
and B. F. Argyris, 1959) or unilateral nephrectomy (T. S. Argyris and
B. F. Argyris, 1962a) do not lead to the stimulation of growth of resting
hair follicles. In both these cases the presence of systemic growth-promoting substances has been demonstrated (Bucher et al., 1951; Leong et al.,
1964). Of course, it is possible that the systemic growth-promoting sub-
17
Damage with a heated needle does not result in an increase in mitotic
activity in the contralateral kidney although there is an increase around
the damaged areas (Table I). This suggests that the growth-promoting
effects of damage on the contralateral kidney do not result from the loss
of mass, since kidney mass is lost after damage with a heated needle,
but there is no increased mitotic activity in the contralateral kidney.
TABLE I
Mitotic Activity in the Left Kidney Cortex after Treatment to the Right Kidney
(Mice Treated with Colchicine)"
Right kidney
Males
Females
Days
No. mitoses
No. mitoses
postNo. -
- No.
treatof
100 000 cells
of
100 000 cells
Treatment
ment
mice
(Av. ± SE m )»
mice
(Av. ± SE m )
&
None
2
25
32.7 ± 5.4
22
16.7 ± 2.8
Sham operation
2
10
150.2 ± 39.1
8
20.6 + 2.4
Damage (multiple needle
2
12
321.7 ± 78.0
9
56.7 ± 11.8
insertions)
Unilateral nephrectomy
2
29
352.7 ± 46.0
17
80.6 ± 14.9
Damage (multiple hot needle
2
11
34.5 ± 6.8
insertions)
° From Argyris and Trimble (1964b).
6
Average ± standard error of the mean.
They are probably caused by release of stimulating substances. [Further
evidence that the loss of mass produced by damaging the kidney is not
responsible for the increase in mitotic activity in the contralateral kidney
will be presented in the section on the mechanism of damage-induced
growth (Section IV,A,2).] Therefore, damage can result in proliferative
effects that are systemic.
Since damage to one of a pair of organs can lead to mitotic stimulation
in the other member, we may ask if damage of an organ can have growthpromoting effects on other organs. Few investigations attempt to answer
this question. We have found that partial hepatectomy (T. S. Argyris
and B. F. Argyris, 1959) or unilateral nephrectomy (T. S. Argyris and
B. F. Argyris, 1962a) do not lead to the stimulation of growth of resting
hair follicles. In both these cases the presence of systemic growth-promoting substances has been demonstrated (Bucher et al., 1951; Leong et al.,
1964). Of course, it is possible that the systemic growth-promoting sub-