Posted on behalf of David Fell <daf at bms.brookes.ac.uk>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't agree with Benno ter Kuile (terkuile at edu.rockefeller.rockvax)
that re relaxation of the definition of `rate-limiting' to be 75% or
more of the flux control really helps. Most people who use
`rate-limiting step' have no quantitative experimental information
about the degree of influence of the step on pathway rate at all.
Usually they just mean that they've decided it's a very important
step, and the experimental information they cite, if any, does not
allow a quantitative assessment. Can Benno give an example of a user
of the `rate-limiting step' concept who can claim justification by a
published demonstration of a flux control coefficient greater than
0.75? The harm resides in using a term that makes a very specific
claim in the absence of experimental results that support its
validity, and that's not sloppy use of language, it's bad science.
David Fell
daf at bms.brookes.ac.uk
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
"
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit (Virgil)
[approx] Tr: The time may come when we will look back on these days and laugh
"
