ReviewFunction (Oxford, England)2022
The Need for Consistency with Physical Laws and Logic in Choosing Between Competing Molecular Mechanisms in Biological Processes: A Case Study in Modeling ATP Synthesis.
Review in Function (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Warburg Effect Reinterpreted 100 yr on: A First-Principles Stoichiometric Analysis and Interpretation from the Perspective of ATP Metabolism in Cancer Cells.Function (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Phosphorus Chemistry at the Roots of Bioenergetics: Ligand Permutation as the Molecular Basis of the Mechanism of ATP Synthesis/Hydrolysis by FMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Elucidating Events within the Black Box of Enzyme Catalysis in Energy Metabolism: Insights into the Molecular Mechanism of ATP Hydrolysis by FBiomolecules · 2023Article
- Beyond binding change: the molecular mechanism of ATP hydrolysis by FFrontiers in chemistry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditionally, proposed molecular mechanisms of fundamental biological processes have been tested against experiment. However, owing to a plethora of reasons-difficulty in designing, carrying out, and interpreting key experiments, use of different experimental models and systems, conduct of studies under widely varying experimental conditions, fineness in distinctions between competing mechanisms, complexity of the scientific issues, and the resistance of some scientists to discoveries that are contrary to popularly held beliefs-this has not solved the problem despite decades of work in the field/s. The author would like to prescribe an alternative way: that of testing competing models/mechanisms for their adherence to scientific laws and principles, and checking for errors in logic. Such tests are fairly commonly carried out in the mathematics, physics, and engineering literature. Further, reported experimental measurements should not be smaller than minimum detectable values for the measurement technique employed and should truly reflect function of the actual system without inapplicable extrapolation. Progress in the biological fields would be greatly accelerated, and considerable scientific acrimony avoided by adopting this approach. Some examples from the fundamental field of ATP synthesis in oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) have been reviewed that also serve to illustrate the approach. The approach has never let the author down in his 35-yr-long experience on biological mechanisms. This change in thinking should lead to a considerable saving of both time and resources, help channel research efforts toward solution of the right problems, and hopefully provide new vistas to a younger generation of open-minded biological scientists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.