Sketching out Cell Theory, circa 1837

How a dinner-table conversation between two biologists led to the formulation of the theory that cells are the building blocks of all living organisms.

By Kate Yandell | August 1, 2013

GREEN SHOOTS: Matthias Schleiden was not satisfied merely with classifying plants; instead, he studied them under his microscope. Those observations prompted Schleiden to theorize about the importance of cells and their nuclei. This picture shows Schleiden’s sketches of an assortment of cells and embryonic structures from a palm, an orchid, the cherry rice-flower, and several other plants.WELLCOME LIBRARY, LONDONIn 1837, Matthias Schleiden and Theodor Schwann were dining together in Berlin when Schleiden mentioned a recent discovery by the Scottish botanist Robert Brown: the nucleus. Brown had shown that it was present in a variety of plant cells.

Schwann, an animal physiologist, and Schleiden, a botanist, were students of Johannes Peter Müller at Berlin’s Humboldt University. When  Schwann heard about the nucleus, he realized that he had seen a similar structure in the vertebrate notochord—a rodlike structure in the embryo that develops into the spinal column. Sure enough, when the duo got together to examine notochords under the microscope, they saw cells containing nuclei just like those seen in plants. Such observations might seem ho-hum today, but they were unprecedented at the time.

Robert Hooke had coined the word “cell”—short for cellula, or “small compartment” in Latin—in the mid-17th century, after he’d seen tiny rectangular shapes while studying slices of cork using a rudimentary microscope. But Hooke had not grasped the importance and ubiquity of cells in plants. And by Schwann and Schleiden’s time, though animal physiologists had observed structures that would later be recognized as cells, little evidence had arisen to suggest that these structures had much in common with plants’ boxy, walled compartments.

Based on his microscopic observations of various animal tissues—from notochords and cartilage in tadpoles to the pith of birds’ feathers to the aorta of a pig fetus—Schwann proposed that all animal tissues are composed of cells, and that the cell was the fundamental structural and functional unit of all living organisms. “The real contribution of Schleiden and Schwann was to say [cells] were everywhere,” says Laura Otis, a professor of English at Emory University in Atlanta and author of Müller’s Lab, a book about Müller and his students.

In his 1838 article “Contributions to Phytogenesis,” Schleiden had written that cells and their nuclei are the essential building blocks of plants, beginning in the embryo. Schwann published his theories a year later, in a book called Microscopical Researches into the Accordance in the Structure and Growth of Animals and Plants: “[I]t may be asserted that there is one universal principle of development for the elementary parts of organisms, however different, and that this principle is the formation of cells.” That proposition, he explained, “as well as the conclusions which may be drawn from this proposition, may be comprised under the term cell theory.”

Müller’s influential lab was the perfect place from which to disseminate such ideas. Indeed, Müller included cell theory in his widely read Handbook of Human Physiology. “From the 1840s to the 1880s it was probably the most important physiology textbook in Europe,” says Otis. “Everyone read Müller.”

Schwann and Schleiden had not understood that cells arise through a process of division, however. Schleiden argued that cells form around nuclei, with cell membranes growing out of nuclear structures. Schwann, meanwhile, thought that animal cells tended to “crystallize” out of the material between previously existing cells, which he called the cytoblastema.

Soon after formulating cell theory, both Schwann and Schleiden took professorships in other cities. Their ideas continued to be refined by Müller’s students, such as Rudolf Virchow, who popularized the idea that all cells arise from cells. That was the final pillar of cell theory, a sketchy set of ideas that, once refined, eventually formed the edifice of modern biological research.

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You



Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo


Avatar of: Curculio


Posts: 61

August 16, 2013

Great historical perspective.  I've met so many biologists who couldn't tell you the premises of cell theory.  It is good to return to the fundamentals!

Avatar of: Mong H Tan, PhD

Mong H Tan, PhD

Posts: 9

September 8, 2013

RE: Reductionism vs. Holism in Modern Biology and History: Neo-Darwinism vs. Genetics and Physiology(+)!? (continued from “Opinion: A Diverse Perspective” therein under; September 1, 2013)

3] As such, socio-intellectually, philoscientifically, and pedagogically, it was no surprise that Just’s professional training and pursuits, might have had inquired, acquired, focused, and adopted the then preeminent “developmental and growth” cellular physiology, embryology, among the holism in the practical scientific inquiry, methods, and empiricism of the continental Europe of his time -- while not been seduced, bemused, sidetracked, confused, short-sighted, or corrupted by the then equally preeminent naturalist, positivist, selectionist reductionism in biomorphism or “evolutionist biology” namely the neo-Darwinism that had had been brewing since the passing of Darwin in England (1882): As after which time, the 1859 Darwinism of the “natural selection” (NS) explanation of evolution or the NS as a “metaphor” that may be akin to the Scottish economist Adam Smith’s (1723-90) “invisible hand” epiphenomena in socioeconomics (or the NS “invisible forces” in “Darwinian NS orthodoxy” of otherwise philoscientific Naturalism, the NS orthodoxy that would later be further infused subliminally and/or hubristically -- but not empirically -- by the varied positivist, reductionist, and/or selectionist imaginations: in and of their gross evolutionist narratives or rhetoric; selectionist explanatory analogies and assertions; reductionist complacencies and pseudoscience expediencies; etc) had had since been morphed (or literally extrapolated and reductively transformed) into his cousin Sir Francis Galton’s (1822-1911) per pseudogenetic selectionist “eugenics” theory (as brilliantly and radiantly laid out in Galton’s 1883 book “Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development”); and which had had further been morphed into the subsequent neo-Darwinist, evolutionist, pseudoscience of the Modern Synthesis (MS) doctrine -- or the “evolutionism” synthesis manifesto, the reductionist proclamation that was basically concocted by the then prevailing pseudogenetic selectionist, positivist, evolutionist, and eugenicist mutually-coaxed consensus and declaration (but not by any substantiated scientific empiricism at all) in the 1930s-40s -- and this neo-Darwinist evolutionism (including the 1960s-70s MS inspired, spawned, and parasitic “biologism” and “geneticism” turning thus otherwise the prototypic “philoscientific Darwinism” into its penultimate “evolutionist, positivist, and reductionist Scientism”) that I have had been consistently and persistently refuting ever since the post-genomics era of today and beyond worldwide!?

Avatar of: Mong H Tan, PhD

Mong H Tan, PhD

Posts: 9

September 8, 2013

My library Browser RAM still couldn't upload all my 3 & 4 Comments on this webpage, so I shall post en masse of all my 5-point Commentary on my own blog "Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now" therein!? Thank you for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Best wishes, Mong 9/8/13usct2:37p

Popular Now

  1. Elena Rybak-Akimova, Chemical Kinetics Expert, Dies
  2. University of Oregon Erecting a $1-Billion Science Center
  3. Could Rapamycin Help Humans Live Longer?
  4. Investigation Finds Signs of Misconduct in Swedish Researcher’s Papers