On 02/05/97 -0700, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>Do you use any of these databases (or other similar ones) to find
>information about enzymes or metabolic pathways?
>:::>You will also be concerned by the fact that the IUBMB Executive Committee
>has taken a decision that if not reversed will make it impossible for this
>work to continue. Full information, including suggestions of what you can
>do about it, is given on a web page at
>http://www.chem.qmw.ac.uk/iupac/jcbn/help.html.>Nobody seems to have picked up this thread. I looked at the web page and
was pretty upset that a fairly mindless decision seemed to have been taken.
I have sent the following message to the addresses listed on the Web page:
=====================================================================
I am astonished to hear of the dissolution of the Nomenclature Commission
of the IUBMB, apparently without any consideration of how this will affect
the work on Enzyme Nomenclature.
It is all the more surprising since the growing importance of publicly
accessible electronic databases makes the work on enzyme nomenclature even
more essential. For example, molecular biologists seem to assume that if
genome databases are available, it will be possible to reconstruct the
metabolic capabilities of an organism from the genes for enzymes. Have
they ever tried this? Even cursory examination shows that this could not
be possible without cross-reference to the Enzyme Catalogue, as is shown by
EcoCyc (http://www.ai.sri.com/ecocyc/ecocyc.html) and KEGG
(http://www.genome.ad.jp/kegg/kegg1.html). In fact, even with the Enzyme
Catalogue references, there are still many problems to be resolved before
an entirely mechanical assembly of the metabolic pathways could be achieved
(see for example the work of Toni Kazic on the Klotho project and her
published work on why this is necessary: http://www.ibc.wustl.edu/klotho/).
It would seem that enzymologists, metabolic biochemists, molecular
biologists and biotechnologists should have common cause in making further
advances in this area, and it hardly needs saying that this will only be
possible if there is world-wide agreement on issues of naming and
classifying. Who more appropriate to oversee this than the IUBMB? What
could conceivably justify their decision to withdraw from this area?
Another reason for the importance of continuing the work on Enzyme
Nomenclature comes from its role in ensuring clarity of communication in
the biochemical literature, another topic that one would have expected the
IUBMB to show some interest in. As an editor of the Biochemical Journal, I
am well aware of the importance of having an agreed nomenclature and
classification for enzymes, and of the anarchy that would ensue if there
was not an accessible and respected authority for both authors and editors
to refer to.
Surely this decision must be reconsidered. Even if it is not reversed
(which seems the most sensible option), there should at least be some more
considered strategy to ensure that the work on Enzyme Nomenclature is
transferred elsewhere in an orderly fashion.
========================================================
Doesn't anyone else out there agree that this is important? If so, get
writing.
David Fell
=======================================================
David Fell, daf at bms.brookes.ac.uk (usual & current)
GESBI, UFR de Biochimie, Universite de Bordeaux II,
146 rue Leo Saignat, 33076 Bordeaux CEDEX, FRANCE.
David.Fell at u-bordeaux2.fr (April-June '97)
