- Email: [email protected]
An unidentified activator of phosphorylase b
TIBS - August
N 187
1979
argued justification for its actions, possibly because it had none. By and large, the National Academy, and the Nobel and Lasker award committees, do a good job. The question is, why don’t they do an invariably excellent job? Why do scientists, sticklers for accuracy in their own work, tolerate such crude merit recognition systems that contain so considerable a random element? Why settle for rough justice when you could have justice?
Modern science is so successful because it is in large measure a collective enterprise. Most discoveries are composite achievements, to which several individuals or teams have generally made distinct and crucial contributions. It would be truer to the social and cognitive structure of science if those handing out prizes or Academy memberships would recognize a particular discovery, rather than an individual, as the primary basis for assigning kudos.
The domain of the lone-acting hero?
Having decided to recognize a particular discovery, why not then have your award committee act as scientists instead of as members of an old boy network. Let them prepare a review monograph describing the development of the field in question, citing the most significant contributions in the usual way. To be cited in the monograph would be like being mentioned in
The first step towards a remedy,
perhaps, lies in recognizing that the prize system, and to some extent Academy elections, are premised on an antiquated and probably always inaccurate vision of science as the domain of lone-acting heroes. Newtons and Einsteins have become the stereotype of the researcher whereas in fact they are the exception.
An alternative system
dispatches; that would be the honour as far as the scientific community is concerned. Most prizes, however, have their public relations dimension; someone has to be chosen to hobnob with Swedish royals or have media-worthy cash bounties thrust upon them. So from those cited ip the prize committee’s review monograph, one or two names could be chosen, perhaps by lot, to serve as the public recipients of the honour in question. Even better, they could be selected by a historian of science who, working from the monograph, would ascertain more precisely who had made what contribution in each cited paper. The monograph would constitute a public record of the prize committee’s thinking. It would make the process open, the reasoning explicit, give the honour more meaning, make the selection process less arbitrary in appearance; and justice would not only be done, but would be seen to be done.
Unfinished Business An unidentified activator phosphorylase b T. G. Sotiroudis, N. G. Oikonomakos A. E. Evangelopoulos A contaminant in preparations of cortisone some years old (Fluka, Organon and Schering) was able to induce activity in rabbit-muscle phosphorylase b (EC 2.4.1.1). The contaminant X, isolated from the cortisone preparations by thin-layer chromatography (chloroformmethanol, 9:1), exhibited RF = 0.22 (RF of 0.35). Its mass spectrum cortisone, showed a possible relatively low intensity mol&ular ion at m/e 576. Newlypurchased cortisone preparations were free from the activator. activation of The maximum phosphorylase b by contaminant X (at 10 pg/ml) was 68% of that achieved by AMP (1 mM) at 16 mM glucose l-phosphate. The Km value for X at 16 mM glucose l-phosphate was 1.2 pg/ml, and at 0.9 pg/ml of X the Km for AMP was lowered to one-third. X also served, with AMP, to promote conversion of the enzyme into the tetrameric form, X, and the enzyme and the glycogen were free from AMP [ 1I. The authors are at The National Hellenic Research Foundation, 48 Vassileos, Constantinou Ave., Athens 501 II, Greece.
of and
We had only a small amount of the contaminated cortisone preparations and the content of X was less than 1%. It has been impossible to demonstrate whether X is an artifact from long storage or a synthetic precursor of cortisone. Assuming a steroid structure for X, its RF value suggests that it is more hydroxylated than cortisone. It may be relevant to note that
I
L!3YLJ1p
some hydroxylated steroids were able to induce a small stimulation (lo-15%) of the AMPdependent activity of phosphorylase b at 10 /.LMAMP (80 steroids obtained from the British MRC Steroid Reference Collection were tested). Contaminant X was also an activator of pig-muscle phosphorylase b but had no effect on the rabbit-liver or cock-muscle enzymes. Finally, we would like to add that we still have about 100 mg of an old cortisone preparation, available for critical experiments. Reference 1 Carty, T. J., Tu, J.-I. and Graves, D. J. (1975)
J. Biol.
Chem. 250, 49804985
4
SUP
One of the aims of TlBS is to publish information as clearly and concisely as possible. Professor Marco Baggiolini’s definition of differential centrifugation certainly meets these criteria. Indeed he tells us this may be a revolutionary definition since it relates to r.p.m.
N 187
1979
argued justification for its actions, possibly because it had none. By and large, the National Academy, and the Nobel and Lasker award committees, do a good job. The question is, why don’t they do an invariably excellent job? Why do scientists, sticklers for accuracy in their own work, tolerate such crude merit recognition systems that contain so considerable a random element? Why settle for rough justice when you could have justice?
Modern science is so successful because it is in large measure a collective enterprise. Most discoveries are composite achievements, to which several individuals or teams have generally made distinct and crucial contributions. It would be truer to the social and cognitive structure of science if those handing out prizes or Academy memberships would recognize a particular discovery, rather than an individual, as the primary basis for assigning kudos.
The domain of the lone-acting hero?
Having decided to recognize a particular discovery, why not then have your award committee act as scientists instead of as members of an old boy network. Let them prepare a review monograph describing the development of the field in question, citing the most significant contributions in the usual way. To be cited in the monograph would be like being mentioned in
The first step towards a remedy,
perhaps, lies in recognizing that the prize system, and to some extent Academy elections, are premised on an antiquated and probably always inaccurate vision of science as the domain of lone-acting heroes. Newtons and Einsteins have become the stereotype of the researcher whereas in fact they are the exception.
An alternative system
dispatches; that would be the honour as far as the scientific community is concerned. Most prizes, however, have their public relations dimension; someone has to be chosen to hobnob with Swedish royals or have media-worthy cash bounties thrust upon them. So from those cited ip the prize committee’s review monograph, one or two names could be chosen, perhaps by lot, to serve as the public recipients of the honour in question. Even better, they could be selected by a historian of science who, working from the monograph, would ascertain more precisely who had made what contribution in each cited paper. The monograph would constitute a public record of the prize committee’s thinking. It would make the process open, the reasoning explicit, give the honour more meaning, make the selection process less arbitrary in appearance; and justice would not only be done, but would be seen to be done.
Unfinished Business An unidentified activator phosphorylase b T. G. Sotiroudis, N. G. Oikonomakos A. E. Evangelopoulos A contaminant in preparations of cortisone some years old (Fluka, Organon and Schering) was able to induce activity in rabbit-muscle phosphorylase b (EC 2.4.1.1). The contaminant X, isolated from the cortisone preparations by thin-layer chromatography (chloroformmethanol, 9:1), exhibited RF = 0.22 (RF of 0.35). Its mass spectrum cortisone, showed a possible relatively low intensity mol&ular ion at m/e 576. Newlypurchased cortisone preparations were free from the activator. activation of The maximum phosphorylase b by contaminant X (at 10 pg/ml) was 68% of that achieved by AMP (1 mM) at 16 mM glucose l-phosphate. The Km value for X at 16 mM glucose l-phosphate was 1.2 pg/ml, and at 0.9 pg/ml of X the Km for AMP was lowered to one-third. X also served, with AMP, to promote conversion of the enzyme into the tetrameric form, X, and the enzyme and the glycogen were free from AMP [ 1I. The authors are at The National Hellenic Research Foundation, 48 Vassileos, Constantinou Ave., Athens 501 II, Greece.
of and
We had only a small amount of the contaminated cortisone preparations and the content of X was less than 1%. It has been impossible to demonstrate whether X is an artifact from long storage or a synthetic precursor of cortisone. Assuming a steroid structure for X, its RF value suggests that it is more hydroxylated than cortisone. It may be relevant to note that
I
L!3YLJ1p
some hydroxylated steroids were able to induce a small stimulation (lo-15%) of the AMPdependent activity of phosphorylase b at 10 /.LMAMP (80 steroids obtained from the British MRC Steroid Reference Collection were tested). Contaminant X was also an activator of pig-muscle phosphorylase b but had no effect on the rabbit-liver or cock-muscle enzymes. Finally, we would like to add that we still have about 100 mg of an old cortisone preparation, available for critical experiments. Reference 1 Carty, T. J., Tu, J.-I. and Graves, D. J. (1975)
J. Biol.
Chem. 250, 49804985
4
SUP
One of the aims of TlBS is to publish information as clearly and concisely as possible. Professor Marco Baggiolini’s definition of differential centrifugation certainly meets these criteria. Indeed he tells us this may be a revolutionary definition since it relates to r.p.m.