It was RXDX-101 essential for assay of the carboxylase enzyme. Melvin’s efforts to substantiate his Thioctic Acid Theory prevented him from noticing my feverish efforts with a Belgian scientist, Jacques Mayaudon. Calvin seemed totally disinterested in my work. Thus, in the fall of 1954, I was not telling him what Jacques and I were doing: though it was much like my work with

Rod Quayle and Clint Fuller (Quayale et al. 1954). It was then (December 10, 1954) that Melvin told me, “It is time to go.” (It was obvious that it meant I had to leave the laboratory.) I had no place to go, and he made no apparent effort on my behalf. After playing a major role in deciphering the pathway, I was dismissed. With Al Bassham and others in the laboratory, we had been very successful and published our 21st article, in 1954, on the path of carbon in photosynthesis (see Bassham et al. 1954; also see Appendix). I had played a major role in identifying the intermediates in the Path of Carbon in Photosynthesis and was responsible for the discovery of ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate—the “missing” intermediate that was central to formulating the final cycle. It is unfortunate that Calvin appended the thioctic acid hypothesis in this 1954 article. The idea was soon

dead as Fuller’s analyses gave no evidence for the participation of thioctic acid. Neither Jacques nor Melvin was familiar with the recognition and isolation of “Fraction-1 Protein” by Sam Selleck RG7420 Wildman (see Wildman 2002). I had visited Sam in his office and laboratory at Caltech frequently during that time. Sam explained to me Selleckchem A-1210477 the universal occurrence of a major fraction of proteins, Fraction 1 protein, in plant leaves and its purification Florfenicol by precipitation at 35% with

increasing concentrations of saturated ammonium sulfate solution. Jacques’s saturated ammonium sulfate precipitations indicated that the carboxylase enzyme separated at 35%, the same as Wildman’s Fraction 1 Protein. We had discovered that the carboxylase and Fraction-1 Protein are identical. I phoned Sam Wildman with the news and typed a two-page report that I felt obliged to submit to Melvin as I departed. The fate of this article is another story (see below). Melvin had no concept of the importance of the identity of Fraction-1 Protein and carboxydismutase (now called ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase or Rubisco). After I departed, Melvin directed Rod Quayle’s and Jacques Mayaudon’s efforts. They were clearly not pointed toward proving the identity of carboxydismutase and the Fraction-1 Protein, but more toward documenting the physical properties of the carboxylating enzyme. Jacques and Rod were not in a position to complain since they had not read Wildman and Bonner’s article on Fraction 1 Protein (Wildman and Bonner 1947) and many others (see Wildman 1998).