Petr Kuzmic wrote:
>Jannie Hofmeyr wrote:
>>> Kacser's point (we called it `Kacser's dream' in our 1993 EJB paper
>> [Hofmeyr, Cornish-Bowden, Rohwer (1993) Eur.J.Biochem. 212,
>> 833-837.]) was that detailed knowledge of individual reaction
>> mechanisms should not be needed to understand the control of
>> steady-state concentration and flux.
>>Before I read your paper,
Yes, but do read it! It's one were quite proud of.
>am I allowed an example? Maybe we just need
>to clarify what "mechanism" really means.
>>Mechanism A: Michaelis-Menten
>> E + S <==> ES --> E + P (Km, kcat)
>>Mechanism B: 'substrate inhibition'
>> E + S <==> ES --> E + P (Km, kcat)
> ES + S <==> ES2 (Ki)
>Jannie's answer to this is fine, but it may be worth noting that Michael
Savageau sometimes uses the terms Michaelis-Menten formalism and
Michaelis-Menten kinetics with an extremely broad meaning, covering
virtually anything that can be expressed in terms of mechanisms and rate
equations. Thus for him a kinetic representation of the Monod, Wyman and
Changeux model would an example of Michaelis-Menten formalism. This may be
one reason why controlniks sometimes find papers in biochemical systems
theory a little hard to follow...
Athel
Email: athel at ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr
Site map: http://ir2lcb.cnrs-mrs.fr/~athel/sitemap.htm
New Beer in an Old Bottle: http://ir2lcb.cnrs-mrs.fr/~athel/buchner.htm
MCA FAQ: http://ir2lcb.cnrs-mrs.fr/~athel/mcafaq.htm
MCA chapter from my book:
http://ir2lcb.cnrs-mrs.fr/~athel/mcai.htm
