The cell concept

Biology and chemical nomenclature

“…Though the illustration is meant to be helpful it is here that the difficulty arises, for the biological fraternity appears to have been unnecessarily slow in adopting the nomenclature recommended by the various International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) reports. Even the more recent biochemistry texts such as Yudkin and Offord (1980), Stryer (1981), Wood et al (1981), and Campbell and Smith (1982), fail to remark on the problem and only Kramer and Scott (1979) provide a brief but useful introduction to it. Thus, for example, is it not time that 'acetyl' was replaced by 'ethanoyl', so that it is ethanoyl co-enzyme A, indolyl ethanoic acid, and ethanoyl choline?…”

“…So to replace one name with another, such as glycine with amino ethanoic acid, would seem pointless and unnecessary. Third, the names of the more elaborate organic molecules may be open to different interpretations: citric acid might be 2-hydroxypropane, 1, 2, 3, tricarboxylic acid as in Kramer and Scott (1979), or 3-hydroxy, 3-carboxy pentanedioic acid (see figure 4). However, if there were some consensus amongst biologists, then the adoption of these terms for molecules in the familiar metabolic pathways, such as Krebs' cycle, might make the nature of the reactions in which they engage self-evident; for example, citrate to isocitrate would become 2-hydroxy to 1-hydroxypropane, 1,2,3, tricarboxylic acid.…”