OK, here's some scientific discussion:
Toni Kazic wrote:
>[My inclinations are more with I think Paul's, who said
>the other day that he was finding more fully dynamical treatments more
>useful. I apologize if I have garbled the statement, my memory for the
>phrasing and attribution are imperfect.]
You've quoted me about right, Toni. Now I'll go and say something
totally outrageous.
I would suggest that there are two primary reasons for the initial
development of matrix tools:
1) in the case where one does not have equations for all the enzymes
involved, or you want to quantify the behavior of a system with
too many variables to develop a comprehensive model, they allow one
to analyze the system without building a formal model;
2) a historic lack of the compute-power and software needed to do the
fully dynamic stuff.
If I can build a simulation model and put in everything I know about the
enzyme kinetics, over large concentration ranges, then any subsequent
matrix approach will, at best, extract only a subset of the information
in the model. So why settle for a subset? I can do local sensitivity
analysis (e.g, steady-state CCs), finite-difference sensitivity analyses,
and dynamic sensitivity analyses, on models of any complexity or level(s)
of organization, for every single parameter in the model, without deriving
a separate method for each type of problem.
OK, I'm ducking. Maybe after this you'll want someone else as moderator.
-Paul
