Talk:Lineweaver-Burk plot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Requested move 2 Wrong spelling 3 Moving page... 4 Requested move, take 2

[edit] Requested move

This is the discussion of the first requested move, filed on 21 April 2006. This changed "diagram" to "plot" in the title.

Proposing that this page be moved to Lineweaver-Burke plot. "Burke" is already the spelling in the article, and most other pages refer to this as a "plot". Isopropyl 06:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

support -- stillnotelf is invisible 06:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 08:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong spelling

Can this article please be renamed to Lineweaver-Burk plot?

[edit] Moving page...

Regarding the question of which spelling is correct, common usage appears to be "Lineweaver-Burk".

Lineweaver-Burke: 24,100 Google hits

Lineweaver-Burk: 183,000 Google hits

Moved to "Lineweaver-Burk plot" -- The Anome 12:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Question: who were Lineweaver and Burk? -- The Anome 12:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Lineweaver-Burk equation is the inverse of the Michaelis-Menten equation, somewhat simplified. I know who Leonor Michaelis and Maud Menten are, so Lineweaver and Burk are clearly just Michaelis and Menten standing on their heads, and not quite as smart. Meconium 14:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

In the days before numerical solving of enzymatic equations, everything had to be done by hand. Given several parameters, a Lineweaver-Burke plot was the easiest way to calculate for the others without analytically solving the differential equation, as Michaelis-Menten would require. Note that the Michaelis-Menten equation is just a simplified version of the Briggs-Haldane equation. Isopropyl 16:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move, take 2

This is the discussion of the second requested move, filed on 30 April 2006.

Proposing that this page be (again) moved to Lineweaver-Burke plot. Following the first requested move discussion (see below), admin Nightstallion moved the article to the correct name. On 30 April, user The Anome moved the article to its current name, with the rationale that its misspelling garnered more Google hits.

Regardless of how many Google hits the incorrect spelling generates, it does not change the fact that "Burke" is the correct spelling. I've never seen an authoritative text on enzymatics that refers to "Burk", and a quick glance at a couple of my textbooks for classes reveals that they all refer to "Burke". The correct spelling is "Lineweaver-Burke", and if there is a common misspelling, that's what redirects are for. We should not be propagating error by continuing to use an incorrect title. Isopropyl 16:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the on-line version of a standard Biochemistry textbook (Biochemistry, 5th edition; Berg, Tymoczko, Stryer) and found the term presented as 'Lineweaver-Burk'. See links from a query against the NCBI Bookshelf. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I have "Burke" in "Biological Kinetics" by Wittrup & Tidor. Interestingly, many Google results turn up both terms within the same page, which is confusing. Isopropyl 18:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen "Burke" used almost exclusively in most biochem textbooks (with Lehninger being a notable exception), but it appears that "Burk" is in fact correct. The original 1934 paper uses "Burk", along with another paper from 1933 and an essay in his memory written by a colleague (obviously not authoritative, but chances are that one who knew him well would have spelled his name correctly). That's enough to convince me. --David Iberri (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Enough to convince me as well. How did the gentleman's name manage to get mangled over time, then? And how did reputable texts such as those studied in biochem courses make the mistake as well? Surely there has to be a reason. Isopropyl 18:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Simple — a presumption of correct usage based on precedent without recourse to facts. It happens all the time. P.S. Stryer, the textbook I pointed out above, could be counted as reputable alongside the others mentioned; I used an earlier edition as an undergraduate studying biochemistry. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Accordingly I have removed the move template. Thanks for clarifying this! —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 09:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)