The mechanism distinguishability problem in biochemical kinetics: The single-enzyme, single-substrate reaction as a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A theoretical analysis of the distinguishability problem of two rival models of the single enzyme-single substrate reaction, the Michaelis-Menten and Henri mechanisms, is presented. We also outline a general approach for analysing the structural indistinguishability between two mechanisms. The approach involves constructing, if possible, a smooth mapping between the two candidate models. Evans et al. [N.D. Evans, M.J. Chappell, M.J. Chapman, K.R. Godfrey, Structural indistinguishability between uncontrolled (autonomous) nonlinear analytic systems, Automatica 40 (2004) 1947-1953] have shown that if, in addition, either of the mechanisms satisfies a particular criterion then such a transformation always exists when the models are indistinguishable from their experimentally observable outputs. The approach is applied to the single enzyme-single substrate reaction mechanism. In principle, mechanisms can be distinguished using this analysis, but we show that our ability to distinguish mechanistic models depends both on the precise measurements made, and on our knowledge of the system prior to performing the kinetics experiments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".