Nick Theodorakis nicholas_theodorakis at
Fri May 26 10:47:35 EST 2000

In article <sSouOVTyFt=2j52txwEHszx92Uuw at>, H.V.Taylor <
harold.taylor.delete-this at> wrote:
>klenchin at (Dima Klenchin)
>snip ....
>>There is a multitide of papers discussing in great detail just
what erroneous
>>results straight Scatchard plot can produce. Among them, my
favorite is
>>the one that analysed a great number of published Scatchards
that showed
>>SD for data points and concluded that majority of them showed
sighs of
>>extensive data massaging (if not an outright fabrication) on
the basis of
>>the fact that the data points showed on Scatchard plot had
>>the same value of SD, whcih should not and cannot be the case
>>real life data.
>>        - Dima
>Do you by chance still have the reference of this paper? It
would be
>amusing to read ;-)

When I was in grad. school at Northwestern, I took Phys. Biochem.
form Irving Klotz. One of the things he liked to do for homework
was to give the students photocopied scatchards from published
data with the lines whited out and had us figure out the binding
constants, number of sites, and see how many lines we would draw
through the data. Then he would show us what the authors did, and
usuallly we would have different numbers. One of his pet peeves
was misuse of binding data; I don't know if that study you are
talking about is from him, but it wouldn't surpise me if it was.

BTW, he has a nice book covers binding data well: _Introduction
Biomolecular Energetics_ (1986, Academic Press). It's only about
150pp., so it's worth a look if you need a good in'ro to binding

Nick Theodorakis

nicholas_theodorakis at
* Sent from RemarQ The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

More information about the Methods mailing list