JCE Online Journal of Chemical Education
 | Subscriptions  | Software Orders  | Support  | Contributors  | Advertisers  | 

JCE Print

JCE Digital Library

JCE Software

Only@JCE Online

About JCE


  Home > JCE Print > Journal of Chemical Education > Issues > 2002  > March  >
Chemical Education Today
Letters
Understanding Enzyme Inhibition
Raymond S. Ochs
Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, St. John's University, Jamaica, NY 11439-0002

Cover
March 2002
Vol. 79 No. 3
p. 311

Full Text

The author replies to Ault.

I agree that presentation of the double reciprocal forms and examination of the terms in equations add to an appreciation of enzyme inhibition--once you already understand the topic. The point of my article is that most people don't. Those who specialize in kinetics may feel the need to keep the flame of orthodox kinetics alive by stressing precision in definition, and naturally gravitate toward double reciprocal plots and the behavior evident in equations. The idea that an intuition can be developed through these practices is another matter. Personally, I favor mental pictures such as the sting operation for uncompetitive inhibition. I disagree that we needn't discuss ideal cases of mixed inhibition where both binding constants are equal on the grounds that they are only occasionally observed: what we are talking about is the concept. Unless the extreme cases of the types of inhibition are clearly understood, we will remain ignorant of the central ideas. Even if the extreme case had an occurrence of zero, it would still be worthy of study. Students, professors, and even textbooks currently struggle with the notion of an uncompetitive inhibitor and therefore of any type of inhibition apart from competitive. I don't believe data transformations or deep examination of equations themselves will lead us out of the morass. I am not advocating ignoring more elaborate treatments: I am merely suggesting that, as a first step, a basic understanding is more important than detail.

One final point must be stressed. To retain the emphasis on Km itself rather than V/K is the wrong step, even if we are looking to more advanced treatments. This is because Km is not really a fundamental kinetic constant. Thus, its use, while a simplification and sometimes a useful benchmark, is not a way to more deeply understand kinetics. For a more advanced treatment than my own, I strongly suggest the reader look into Northrop's discussion (1).

Literature Cited

  1. Northrop, D. B. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 1153-1157.
More Information
*  Citation
Ochs, Raymond S. J. Chem. Educ. 2002 79 311.
*  Keywords
Biochemistry; Enzymes; Kinetics; Teaching / Learning Aids
*  History
Created:
Last Updated:
January 31, 2002
March 16, 2005
  Home > JCE Print > Journal of Chemical Education > Issues > 2002  > March  > Page 311


Subscriptions

JCE HS CLIC

Our Secondary School editors work hard to distill all the JCE materials to produce a fraction of particular interest to high school teachers. We call it CLIC.


Contributions Welcome
JCE welcomes your submission

Advertisers
In recent years we have worked hard to better match our advertisers with our readers. When shopping for chemistry education materials, visit our advertisers' WWW sites first.

Be An Ambassador
Take JCE along on your outreach missions. Copies of the Journal, guest access to JCE Online, our publications catalog, and more are available for your participants.