Re: MCA nomenclature
As others have noted the paper on a revised nomenclature
is mostly clear, well written and well intended.
I have only a few comments:
1. Why are co-response and co-control coefficients to be
defined as fundamental symbols in MCA on a par with control
and eleasticity coefficients?
I do not think that this can be seriously justified.
2. In the definition of control coefficient the term
"independent steps" is used but not defined. What does it
mean, and if a step does not fit this criteria is the
control coefficient to be undefined?
3. In the definition of control coefficient the coefficient
is defined as independent of the nature of p. If the
coefficient is not independent of p, is the coefficient to
be undefined? Is this not the case for the channeled pathway?
4. In the definition of control coefficient the fractional change
d ln p rather than the absolute change in p is used. Will this
not cause C to be undefined where p is intially zero?
5. In the definition of response coefficient the nature of
internal response coefficients is left relatively undefined.
6. In the definition of control and elasticity coefficient the
meaning of "local rate" is undefined.
Guy Brown
Department of Biochemistry
University of Cambridge
