For these reasons some members of the panel feel that the symbolism and terminology suggested are not completely satisfactory. No alternative system has so far gained wide support, however. That is still the case today. The change from italic to roman subscripts (and superscripts, when relevant) was Pirfenidone order adopted but not explained in the Recommendations. It was probably done to agree with the IUPAC recommendations, and because of the mathematical convention that italics are used to denote algebraic variables: K may be an algebraic variable, but its subscripts i, m, A, B and so on are not. In such cases A, for example,
refers to the chemical entity A, which is not an algebraic variable, not to its concentration [A] or a, which is. This section of the Recommendations was essentially textbook material that requires no particular discussion here. This section was (and remains), more contentious, because
of uncertainty about what “linear” means. The word has well-defined (but different) meanings in mathematics, physics and statistics, and in other usages it sometimes means a relationship that can be plotted as a straight line, and it sometimes means that one variable depends only on the first power of another. In the context of the recommendations it had this last meaning, but the variables in question are not the rate v and inhibitor concentration Ganetespib molecular weight i (which would be logical but not very useful for describing inhibition, because inhibition is never linear in this sense), but the reciprocal rate 1/v and i. The word linear in this definition refers to the fact that the inhibition is fully specified by terms in the denominator of the rate expression that are linear in inhibitor concentration, not to the straightness of any plots that may be used to characterize the inhibition experimentally. The degree of inhibition, defined as εi=(v0−vi)/v0, where v0 is the rate in the absence of inhibitor and vi is the rate in the presence of
inhibitor, was included at the insistence of a member of the panel who thought it was important, but this term is very little used by biochemists (though it is common in papers in related fields but Carnitine palmitoyltransferase II not written by biochemists). As far as I can detect it is not defined or used in any of the current textbooks on enzyme kinetics ( Bisswanger, 2002, Cook and Cleland, 2007, Cornish-Bowden, 2012 and Marangoni, 2002). Although its utility might seem to be obvious — and doubtless does seem to be obvious to the non-biochemists who use it — it is generally much more informative to characterize inhibition in terms of inhibition constants. An important illustration of this is the concentration for half-inhibition, variously symbolized as i0.5, I50 and other similar ways, which is the inhibitor concentration for ε=0.5. This is very commonly found in the pharmacology literature, but it has very little mechanistic meaning, because it has no straightforward relationship to inhibition constants.