Can I throw my hat in the ring and compliment Johann Rohwer and Jannie
Hoffman on a clear and useful document that formalises the changes in
control analysis nomenclature that have been building up over the last few
years. I support the recommendations.
In my view, it is the partial response coefficients that really get to
grips with the things that biochemists want to measure and express when
they talk about control and regulation. Control coefficients themselves
are seldom of interest to this group of people, in fact they are confusing
and off-putting to most biochemists because they answer questions that
traditional biochemistry (as opposed to biotechnology) doesn't ask and
isn't interested in. The nomenclature proposed for these partial response
coefficients is exactly right, and reflects current usage by us and by most
others.
Although "elasticity coefficient" is horrible we are stuck with it.
"Sensitivity" was so much better. However, I see no harm in abbreviating
it to "elasticity" much of the time whilst retaining the full name for
formal occasions.
I would advocate playing down or dropping the word "metabolic" in the title
"metabolic control analysis". The analysis is much more general than that,
and the title appears to put off those involved in other related systems
such as signal transduction or gene expression. I think we want to avoid
the situation where we coin a new title whenever we apply or extend the
analysis to these related fields. More generally, control analysis is
related to the wider field of mathematical analyses of regulation, so we
need to bear in mind this wider field when we try to harmonise
nomenclature.
Martin Brand
Martin D. Brand
Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge
Tennis Court Road, Cambridge CB2 1QW UK
phone: +44 1223 333648, fax: +44 1223 333345
Internet: http://www.bio.cam.ac.uk/dept/biochem/brand/
