|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ==Which meaning of 'uncoupling'?==
| |
|
| |
|
| I was getting increasingly worried about the fact that students have difficulties to understanding [[uncoupling]] or [[coupling]] in bioenergetics and mitochondrial physiology. In this context we should realize that conventional terminology is not particularly helpful. In fact, the meaning of 'uncoupling' (in the current literature and bioenergetics textbooks) must usually be deduced from the specific context, but this can be achieved only after the concept and context are clear. Are intact mitochondria partially uncoupled, or partially coupled?
| |
|
| |
| Exaggerating, we may be used to phrases such as:
| |
|
| |
| *'''''Uncoupling''' was studied in stressed cells by measurement of coupled respiration, evaluation of '''uncoupled''' respiration after inhibition with oligomycin, and FCCP titration to quantify '''uncoupled''' respiration.''
| |
|
| |
| Perhaps this is intuitively more clear:
| |
|
| |
| *''Dyscoupling was studied in stressed cells by measurement of partially coupled'' '''[[ROUTINE]] respiration''''', evaluation of'' '''[[LEAK]] respiration''' ''after inhibition with oligomycin, and FCCP titration to quantify'' '''[[ETS]] capacity''' ''in the non-coupled state.''
| |
|
| |
| I am even still worried about the different meanings of (1) intrinsic and (2) experimental uncoupling, but have not found a solution. The distinction between dyscoupling versus intrinsic (adaptive?) uncoupling is a fundamental challenge, not of terminology, but of understanding the physiological functions of intrinsic uncoupling.
| |
|
| |
| --[[User:Gnaiger Erich|Gnaiger Erich]] 09:01, 31 May 2011 (CEST)
| |
