A distinct possibility

Every enzyme in the body may be misnamed.

Every enzyme carries out more reactions and side reactions than its eponym indicates.

For example, NOS, nitric oxide synthase, of which there are at least 3 forms. However, all of them could be named

“nitric oxide superoxide synthase,” as all of them can produce at least nitric oxide and superoxide, and the relative amounts of nitric oxide production and superoxide production depend entirely on the local conditions. How much of important structure stabilizers (such as potassium?, taurine?), BH4 (an important structure stabilizer for NOS), how much arginine, how much asymmetric dimethyl-arginine, how much agmatine, how much zinc (an important structure stabilizer for NOS), how much the enzyme has been genetically modified in different ways in different cells, how much the enzyme has been chemically modified (in part by other things, in part by its own byproduct, superoxide, and in part by the product, peroxynitrite, of its product, NO, and its byproduct, superoxide; peroxynitrite does a lot of damage to a lot of things, including converting BH4 into quinoid BH2), where the enzyme has been chemically modified (e.g. there are serines that if phosphorylated, activate it, and there is a threonine that if phosphorylated, inhibits it), how much enzyme is bound to various competing cofactors like Ca2+-calmodulin, hsp90, caveolin-1, etc. etc.

Incredibly complicated, and this is just the tip of that complicated iceberg. At any rate, the enzyme, like most or all others, is misnamed or shall we say “under-named”?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s