In chemistry these are called chemical fluxes or chemifluxes, but it is more usual in biochemistry to call them simply fluxes. The shorter term should, however, be avoided when there is

any danger of confusion with the quite different use of the same term for discussing metabolic pathways. An inordinate amount of time was devoted by the panel of 1981 in their preliminary discussions to deciding which system of numbering rate constants to recommend, finishing with the commonsense advice that authors could use any system GW-572016 cell line they wished as long as it was defined explicitly. The preferred system was that of IUPAC: k1,k−1,k2,k−2,…;v1,v−1,v2,v−2,…in which the elementary reactions in a composite mechanism are numbered in such a way that reverse processes are easily recognized (i.e. with the use of minus signs). Much earlier the Enzyme Commission (IUB, 1961) had suggested that ambiguity could be avoided by prefixing positive subscripts with plus signs, writing k1 as k+1, for example. The ambiguity that this was intended to avoid arose in particular for the symbol k2, which was used without definition by some authors to refer to

the forward rate constant for the second step in a sequence, and by others, again without definition, for the reverse rate constant of the first step. It had been felt MK-1775 ic50 that if k+2 was used with the first meaning then the + sign would make the meaning clear. However, the panel of 1981 took the view that a better solution was to require authors to specify how their rate constants were defined, especially as no single convention could be expected to

satisfy all needs, from the simplest to the most complicated mechanisms. In the years since then the use of+ signs has largely disappeared from the literature. As an example of when a different approach might be preferable, the panel noted that for some kinds of computer application and for theoretical Decitabine research buy discussions of enzyme mechanisms it is sometimes convenient to number the different forms of the enzyme rather than the elementary steps and then to number the step from, for example, E3 to E4 as 34, and the step from E4 to E3 as 43, and so on. With this scheme the numbering of enzyme forms needs to be given explicitly and the rate constants and rates listed above would then become k12,k21,k23,k32,…;v12,v21,v23,v32,…Although this potentially creates a problem if there are more than nine enzyme forms in the mechanism this is easily solved by separating the subscripts by a comma, e.g. k10,11 but this can be omitted when it is not required for clarity.