Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 50 references

A reciprocal Haldane score turns reversible enzyme kinetics into an auditable thermodynamic consistency check, with a curated backbone and labeled fold-error benchmark.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 07:03 UTC pith:JTFVPIME

load-bearing objection Solid curation-and-benchmark resource: a carefully audited 21-record backbone and a labeled fold-error test, not a new theory of kinetics. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.02784 v1 pith:JTFVPIME submitted 2026-07-02 physics.chem-ph physics.bio-ph

Auditing Haldane Consistency in Reversible Enzyme Kinetics: A Curated Two-Sided Backbone and a Labeled Fold-Error Benchmark

Megan Simons , Jonathan Washburn This is my paper
classification physics.chem-ph physics.bio-ph
keywords Haldane relationenzyme kineticsbiochemical thermodynamicsthermodynamic consistencydata curationsemi-synthetic benchmarkoperating characteristics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Reversible enzyme rate constants should imply the same apparent equilibrium constant that biochemistry measures under matched conditions. This paper treats that Haldane link as a per-record audit: it reports the discrepancy with a direction-symmetric reciprocal cost that is zero at exact agreement, treats over- and underestimates equally, and converts fold error into free-energy units of RT. The authors assemble a prespecified two-sided backbone of twenty-one single-study records, find eighteen within twofold and three flagged, and show that all eight genuinely independent kinetic-versus-equilibrium tests fall within twofold. Because real records lack ground-truth error labels, they also build a semi-synthetic labeled benchmark that measures how well the fixed fold bands catch known curation mistakes. A sympathetic reader cares because enzyme databases are large and heterogeneous, and a transparent, reproducible consistency screen can flag which bidirectional records deserve re-examination before they enter models.

Core claim

Under fixed inclusion criteria, a curated backbone of twenty-one audited single-study two-sided records yields eighteen Haldane agreements within twofold and three flagged inconsistencies, while eight independent tests (kinetics fit without a thermodynamic prior against separately measured equilibria) all stay within twofold, with maximum C_Haldane of 0.069. A semi-synthetic benchmark built from twenty-nine within-twofold seeds and 1,885 injected known-error cases then attains an AUC of 0.784 for detecting those injected fold errors, conditional on the six-mode taxonomy and invariant under monotone rescaling of the absolute log-ratio.

What carries the argument

The reciprocal Haldane-consistency score C_Haldane = J(x) with J(x) = 1/2(x + 1/x) - 1 = cosh(ln x) - 1, where x is the ratio of the kinetic to thermodynamic apparent equilibrium constants. It is a calibrated, direction-symmetric reporting scale that encodes free-energy discrepancy in RT units and ranks records identically to absolute Delta-Delta-G.

Load-bearing premise

The paper treats the textbook Haldane combination of reported apparent steady-state constants as a valid numerical comparator to an independent apparent equilibrium constant under the stated rate-law model, even though the underlying quasi-steady-state derivation can fail in some mechanisms.

What would settle it

Find additional single-study two-sided records outside carbohydrate isomerases and epimerases, or independently verified error labels on existing backbone records, that push the independent-test subset beyond twofold or collapse the semi-synthetic AUC under the same fixed taxonomy and cuts.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies the reciprocal cost C_Haldane = cosh(ln x) - 1, with x = K'_eq,kin / K'_eq,thermo, as a direction-symmetric reporting scale for Haldane consistency of reversible enzyme kinetic constants. Under inclusion criteria, an error taxonomy, and fold cuts fixed before harvest, the authors assemble a curated two-sided backbone of twenty-one audited single-study records (sixteen uni–uni, five bi–bi spanning ordered, rapid-equilibrium random, and ping-pong mechanisms). Eighteen records fall within twofold and three are flagged; eight genuinely independent tests (kinetics fit without a thermodynamic prior, scored against separately measured equilibria) all fall within twofold (maximum C_Haldane = 0.069). Because real records lack ground-truth labels, a semi-synthetic benchmark (29 within-twofold seeds, 1,885 injected errors under a six-mode taxonomy) yields AUC 0.784 (95% bootstrap CI 0.725–0.838), stated to be invariant under monotone rescaling of |ln x| and conditional on the injected taxonomy. All data, code, protocol, and the benchmark generator are archived with checksums for exact reproduction. The authors explicitly frame the score as a calibrated reporting convention rather than a new record ordering, and they note that the backbone is chemically concentrated in carbohydrate isomerases and epimerases.

Significance. If the reported numbers hold under the stated scope, the paper supplies a scarce resource: a single-study, condition-matched, two-sided kinetic–thermodynamic corpus with a fully auditable workflow and a labeled fold-error benchmark. Strengths that should be credited include (i) prespecification of inclusion criteria, error taxonomy, and fold cuts before harvest, with a documented candidate-tracker expansion that did not alter acceptance rules; (ii) a second independent re-extraction audit of every backbone record; (iii) mechanism-specific Haldane relations for all three canonical bi–bi forms (Table 8) rather than a uni–uni default; (iv) consistent covariance bracketing so that no backbone flag depends on an unavailable joint covariance; and (v) full archival of data, code, protocol, and SHA-256 checksums. The contribution is biochemical curation, protocol, and fold-error calibration rather than a novel ranking criterion; that self-limitation is appropriate and strengthens the claim. The work is a useful reference for thermodynamic consistency auditing in enzyme kinetics, with the main external limit being chemical narrowness of the backbone and the synthetic nature of the labeled o

major comments (3)
  1. §5 and Table 10: The independent-test subset (n = 8, all within twofold, max C_Haldane = 0.069) is the strongest empirical claim, but the one-sided 95% Clopper–Pearson upper bound on the beyond-twofold rate is ≈0.31. The body correctly labels this a feasibility demonstration and reports the bound in Table 10; the Abstract and Conclusions still lead with the 8/8 result and the maximum score without carrying that uncertainty. Because this subset is presented as primary evidence of consistency under independent conditions, the Abstract’s independent-test sentence should include the bound (or an equivalent uncertainty statement) so that the numerical claim and its statistical power travel together.
  2. §6, Tables 11–14, and Abstract: The reported AUC 0.784 is explicitly invariant under any strictly monotone transformation of |ln x| and is therefore a property of the injected six-mode fold-error taxonomy and the within-twofold seed set, not a performance advantage of C_Haldane. The body states this clearly (including equal-mode and parameter-sensitivity checks in Tables 13–14), but the Abstract still attributes the AUC to “the score” in a way that can be read as score-specific detectability. Tighten the Abstract wording to match the body: the AUC quantifies discriminability of the injected fold-error information under the stated taxonomy, conditional on the seeds, and is shared by |ln x|, (ln x)^2, and |ΔΔG|.
  3. §7.4: The operational defense of the Haldane combination against Barnsley (2022)—as internal consistency of reported apparent constants under the published rate-law model, not proof of microscopic validity—is appropriate and load-bearing for interpretation of all twenty-one scores. The subsequent sentence that agreement of 18/21 records “indicates that the apparent-K relation is often numerically adequate for the well-characterized records considered here” is slightly stronger than the selection allows: records that pass the inclusion criteria (matched conditions, reversible uni–uni or mechanism-specific forms, no allostery/cooperativity/substrate inhibition) are already those for which the rate-law model is expected to be usable. Soften this sentence to an operational statement about internal agreement within the audited sample, without implying a broader numerical validation of the qua
minor comments (6)
  1. Table 9 notes and §5: Human-muscle enolase is correctly marked comparator-sensitive, but the main-text discussion of how the band changes under the standard-state versus high-ionic-strength comparator is deferred to §7. A one-sentence pointer in the Table 9 caption or the backbone-score paragraph would help readers who stop at the table.
  2. Figure 5 caption: The figure mixes backbone central-range records with demonstration-only within-twofold seeds (racemases, phosphate fumarase). The caption explains this, but the legend is dense; a visual distinction (e.g., open vs filled markers) between backbone and demonstration-only points would reduce misreading of sample size.
  3. §2.5 / Theorem 1: The uniqueness characterization is imported from Washburn & Zlatanović [1] and is not needed for the biochemical claims. The present treatment is already careful that (C3) and (C5) are mathematical selection/normalization rather than enzyme-mechanistic laws; a shorter pointer to the Supplementary proof would free main-text space without loss of content.
  4. §4.2 fumarase: The phosphate vs non-phosphate contrast is the cleanest within-study signal in the demonstration set. Consider stating explicitly in the main text (not only the table note) that the pH 6 and pH 8 absolute scores are exploratory relative to the pH ≈ 7.3 comparator, so that the buffer contrast is not over-read as an absolute thermodynamic inconsistency.
  5. Data availability: The Zenodo version DOI and the distinction from the concept DOI are clearly stated; ensure the camera-ready version still points to the immutable v1.4 snapshot rather than a moving landing page, as the manuscript itself warns.
  6. Notation: K'_eq is introduced carefully, but early sections occasionally write K0eq in figure axis labels (Figures 1, 3, 5). Align figure typography with the main-text K' convention for consistency.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Uniqueness of the reciprocal cost is imported from co-author prior work, but is not load-bearing for the backbone counts or AUC; empirical claims rest on independent primary literature and injected labels.

specific steps
  1. uniqueness imported from authors [Section 2.5, Theorem 1 and surrounding text]
    "The axioms (C1)–(C5) and Theorem 1 are imported unchanged from Washburn and Zlatanović [1]: in the present biochemical application (C3) is a mathematical selection principle that picks J out of the d’Alembert family and (C5) is a scale normalization, neither an enzyme-mechanistic law nor a claim of biochemical privilege for CHaldane. The biochemical claims below therefore rely only on the score’s symmetry, fold-error calibration, and monotonicity."

    The uniqueness characterization that singles out J(x)=cosh(ln x)-1 is taken entirely from prior work by one of the present co-authors and is presented as forcing the functional form. Because the paper simultaneously states that C_Haldane ranks identically to |ln x| / |ΔΔG| and that the AUC is invariant under any monotone rescaling of |ln x|, the uniqueness claim is not required for the backbone counts or the reported AUC; it is a non-load-bearing import of the reporting scale.

full rationale

The paper’s central numerical claims are a curated count (18/21 within twofold; 8 independent tests all within twofold, max C_Haldane=0.069) and a semi-synthetic AUC of 0.784 under a stated six-mode taxonomy. Those results are assembled from primary kinetic/thermodynamic sources (TECRDB, SABIO-RK, BRENDA, primary studies) under fixed inclusion criteria that explicitly exclude thermodynamically constrained global fits, so Haldane agreement is not forced by construction. The score C_Haldane is strictly monotone in |ln x| and therefore ranks and ROC-classifies identically to |ln x|, (ln x)^2 or |ΔΔG|; the paper itself states that the contribution is curation, workflow and fold-error calibration rather than a new ordering, and that the AUC is invariant under monotone rescaling. The only circularity-adjacent step is the importation of the five-axiom uniqueness theorem for J(x) from Washburn & Zlatanović (one co-author), which selects the functional form but is not required for the empirical separation or detectability numbers. No self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain appears in the derivation of the backbone or benchmark results. Score 2 reflects a single non-load-bearing uniqueness import.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on the classical Haldane relation for apparent constants, the imported uniqueness of the reciprocal cost, standard biochemical conventions for K'_eq, and a set of prespecified but still human-curated inclusion and error-injection choices. No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are the reporting cut-points and the widths of the synthetic error modes.

free parameters (4)
  • twofold / fivefold / tenfold reporting cuts
    Fixed descriptive bands at RT ln 2, RT ln 5, RT ln 10 (C_Haldane = 0.25, 1.60, 4.05); not fitted to data but chosen by convention and used for flagging and sensitivity tables.
  • isoform/organism log-normal width σ = ln 2
    Baseline width of one injected error mode in the semi-synthetic benchmark; varied ±ln 2 in sensitivity tables.
  • mechanism/formula log-normal width σ = ln 5
    Baseline width of the mechanism-mismatch surrogate; deliberately broad and varied in sensitivity analysis.
  • van't Hoff enthalpy and temperature ranges for condition-mismatch mode
    ΔH ~ U(−60, +60) kJ mol−1 and offset ~ U(−12, +12) K; stress-test prior, halved/doubled in robustness checks.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Haldane relation for reversible uni-uni (and mechanism-specific bi-bi) rate laws equates K'_eq,kin to the ratio of specificity constants (or zero-flux numerator) under the stated biochemical convention.
    Core of Sections 2.1 and 5; operational use is defended in 7.4 against recent critiques of quasi-steady-state derivations.
  • standard math Uniqueness of the calibrated reciprocal cost J(x) = ½(x + x⁻¹) − 1 under axioms (C1)–(C5) (reciprocal symmetry, normalization, composition law, continuity, unit calibration).
    Imported from Washburn & Zlatanović [1] and restated as Theorem 1; used only as a reporting scale, not as a new ranking criterion.
  • domain assumption Apparent transformed equilibrium constants K'_eq are comparable when reaction identity (Rhea/ChEBI), pH, T, ionic strength, and free Mg are matched or explicitly adjusted.
    Sections 2.2 and 3.2–3.3; standard IUBMB/NIST / TECRDB convention.
  • ad hoc to paper Prespecified inclusion/exclusion criteria and the six-mode error taxonomy define the backbone and the labeled benchmark.
    Section 3.5 and Section 6; frozen before harvest but still human-designed and not externally preregistered.
  • domain assumption For free enantiomers in achiral medium, K'_eq,thermo = 1 by symmetry, so racemase controls test only kinetic reciprocity.
    Section 2.2; used for seven demonstration controls.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 35098 in / 3363 out tokens · 32260 ms · 2026-07-12T07:03:17.869351+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Reversible enzyme kinetic constants can be audited through the Haldane relation: the apparent equilibrium constant implied by the rate law should match biochemical thermodynamics under matched conditions. We use the reciprocal cost $C_{\mathrm{Haldane}}=J(K'_{\mathrm{eq,kin}}/K'_{\mathrm{eq,thermo}})$, with $J(x)=\tfrac12(x+x^{-1})-1=\cosh(\ln x)-1$, as a calibrated, direction-symmetric reporting scale. The score is zero at agreement, penalizes reciprocal over- and underestimates equally, encodes the free-energy discrepancy in $RT$ units, and ranks records identically to $|\Delta\Delta G|$; the contribution is therefore biochemical curation, a reproducible workflow, and fold-error calibration rather than a new ordering. We apply the score to a curated demonstration set and, under prespecified inclusion criteria, assemble a two-sided backbone of twenty-one audited single-study records. Eight genuinely independent tests pair kinetics fit without a thermodynamic prior against separately measured equilibria; all eight fall within twofold (maximum $C_{\mathrm{Haldane}}=0.069$), although this remains a feasibility demonstration. Across the full backbone, eighteen records fall within twofold and three are flagged. The backbone is concentrated in carbohydrate isomerases and epimerases, so these results are within-family observations. Because real records carry no ground-truth labels, a semi-synthetic benchmark (twenty-nine within-twofold seeds, $1{,}885$ injected known-error cases) quantifies detectability: AUC $0.784$ ($95\%$ bootstrap CI $0.725$--$0.838$), conditional on the injected error taxonomy and invariant under monotone rescaling of $|\ln x|$. All data, code, protocol, and benchmark generator are archived for exact reproduction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02784 by Jonathan Washburn, Megan Simons.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Shape of the reciprocal cost J(x) = 1 2 (x+x −1 )−1 = cosh(ln x)−1 on a log-scaled ratio axis. The score is zero at exact agreement (x = 1), symmetric under reciprocal error, near-quadratic in ln x near the minimum, and grows steeply for large multiplicative disagreement; the twofold reporting boundary used below is J(2) = 0.25. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Data curation and scoring workflow for reversible uni–uni reactions. Kinetic and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Kinetic versus thermodynamic equilibrium constants for the demonstration-set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Haldane-consistency score [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Kinetic versus thermodynamic apparent equilibrium constants for the central [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Haldane-consistency score CHaldane = cosh(ln x)−1 for all twenty-one audited real two-sided records (identified in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Receiver-operating-characteristic curve for the Haldane-consistency score [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Reference distribution of CHaldane = cosh(ln x) − 1 for the within-twofold seed records (blue, n = 29) and the injected-error cases (red, n = 1,885) on a logarithmic score axis, with the 2-, 5-, and 10-fold band boundaries marked. The seed records concentrate at small CHaldane while injected errors spread across and beyond the bands. The histogram is conditional on the injected error taxonomy and the withi… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Uniqueness of the canon- ical reciprocal cost,

    J. Washburn and M. Zlatanović, “Uniqueness of the canon- ical reciprocal cost,”Mathematics (MDPI)14(6) (2026) 935. doi:10.3390/math14060935

    doi:10.3390/math14060935 2026

  2. [2]

    J. B. S. Haldane,Enzymes, Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1930

    1930

  3. [3]

    The kinetics of enzyme-catalyzed reactions with two or more substrates or products. I. Nomenclature and rate equations,

    W. W. Cleland, “The kinetics of enzyme-catalyzed reactions with two or more substrates or products. I. Nomenclature and rate equations,” Biochim. Biophys. Acta67(1963) 104–137. doi:10.1016/0926-6569(63) 90211-6

    work page doi:10.1016/0926-6569(63 1963

  4. [4]

    Cornish-Bowden,Fundamentals of Enzyme Kinetics, 4th ed., Wiley- VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2012

    A. Cornish-Bowden,Fundamentals of Enzyme Kinetics, 4th ed., Wiley- VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2012. ISBN 978-3-527-33074-4

    2012

  5. [5]

    R. A. Alberty,Thermodynamics of Biochemical Reactions, Wiley- Interscience, Hoboken, NJ, 2003

    2003

  6. [6]

    Thermo- dynamics of enzyme-catalyzed reactions—a database for quan- titative biochemistry,

    R. N. Goldberg, Y. B. Tewari, and T. N. Bhat, “Thermo- dynamics of enzyme-catalyzed reactions—a database for quan- titative biochemistry,”Bioinformatics20(16) (2004) 2874–2877. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bth314. 45

    doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bth314 2004

  7. [7]

    Thermodynamics of enzyme-catalyzed reactions: Part 5. Isomerases and ligases,

    R. N. Goldberg and Y. B. Tewari, “Thermodynamics of enzyme-catalyzed reactions: Part 5. Isomerases and ligases,”J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 24(6) (1995) 1765–1801. doi:10.1063/1.555970

    doi:10.1063/1.555970 1995

  8. [8]

    SABIO-RK—database for biochem- ical reaction kinetics,

    U. Wittig, R. Kania, M. Golebiewski, M. Rey, L. Shi, L. Jong, E. Algaa, A. Weidemann, H. Sauer-Danzwith, S. Mir, O. Krebs, M. Bittkowski, E. Wetsch, I. Rojas, and W. Müller, “SABIO-RK—database for biochem- ical reaction kinetics,”Nucleic Acids Res.40(D1) (2012) D790–D796. doi:10.1093/nar/gkr1046

    doi:10.1093/nar/gkr1046 2012

  9. [9]

    SABIO-RK: an updated resource for manually curated biochemical reaction kinetics,

    U.Wittig, M.Rey, A.Weidemann, R.Kania, andW.Müller, “SABIO-RK: an updated resource for manually curated biochemical reaction kinetics,” Nucleic Acids Res.46(D1) (2018) D656–D660. doi:10.1093/nar/gkx1065

    doi:10.1093/nar/gkx1065 2018

  10. [10]

    BRENDA in 2026: a Global Core Biodata Resource for functional enzyme and metabolic data within the DSMZ Digital Diversity,

    J. Hauenstein, L. Jeske, A. Jäde, M. Krull, K. Dümmer, J. Koblitz, A. Tietz, D. Jahn, L. C. Reimer, and B. Bunk, “BRENDA in 2026: a Global Core Biodata Resource for functional enzyme and metabolic data within the DSMZ Digital Diversity,”Nucleic Acids Res.54(D1) (2026) D527–D534. doi:10.1093/nar/gkaf1113

    doi:10.1093/nar/gkaf1113 2026

  11. [11]

    eQuilibrator—the biochemical thermodynamics calculator,

    A. Flamholz, E. Noor, A. Bar-Even, and R. Milo, “eQuilibrator—the biochemical thermodynamics calculator,”Nucleic Acids Res.40(D1) (2012) D770–D775. doi:10.1093/nar/gkr874

    doi:10.1093/nar/gkr874 2012

  12. [12]

    eQuilibrator 3.0: a database solution for ther- modynamic constant estimation,

    M. E. Beber, M. G. Gollub, D. Mozaffari, K. M. Shebek, A. I. Flamholz, R. Milo, and E. Noor, “eQuilibrator 3.0: a database solution for ther- modynamic constant estimation,”Nucleic Acids Res.50(D1) (2022) D603–D609. doi:10.1093/nar/gkab1106

    doi:10.1093/nar/gkab1106 2022

  13. [13]

    Consis- tent estimation of Gibbs energy using component contributions,

    E. Noor, H. S. Haraldsdóttir, R. Milo, and R. M. T. Fleming, “Consis- tent estimation of Gibbs energy using component contributions,”PLoS Comput. Biol.9(7) (2013) e1003098. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003098

    doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003098 2013

  14. [14]

    Bringing metabolic networks to life: convenience rate law and thermodynamic constraints,

    W. Liebermeister and E. Klipp, “Bringing metabolic networks to life: convenience rate law and thermodynamic constraints,”Theor. Biol. Med. Model.3(2006) 41. doi:10.1186/1742-4682-3-41

    doi:10.1186/1742-4682-3-41 2006

  15. [15]

    Parameter balancing in kinetic models of cell metabolism,

    T. Lubitz, M. Schulz, E. Klipp, and W. Liebermeister, “Parameter balancing in kinetic models of cell metabolism,”J. Phys. Chem. B 114(49) (2010) 16298–16303. doi:10.1021/jp108764b. 46

    doi:10.1021/jp108764b 2010

  16. [16]

    Parameter balancing: consistent pa- rameter sets for kinetic metabolic models,

    T. Lubitz and W. Liebermeister, “Parameter balancing: consistent pa- rameter sets for kinetic metabolic models,”Bioinformatics35(19) (2019) 3857–3858. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btz129

    doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btz129 2019

  17. [17]

    A general framework for thermody- namically consistent parameterization and efficient sampling of en- zymatic reactions,

    P. Saa and L. K. Nielsen, “A general framework for thermody- namically consistent parameterization and efficient sampling of en- zymatic reactions,”PLoS Comput. Biol.11(4) (2015) e1004195. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004195

    doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004195 2015

  18. [18]

    Bottom-upparameterizationofenzymerateconstants: reconciling inconsistent data,

    D. C. Zielinski, M. R. A. Matos, J. E. de Bree, K. Glass, N. Sonnenschein, andB.O.Palsson, “Bottom-upparameterizationofenzymerateconstants: reconciling inconsistent data,”Metab. Eng. Commun.18(2024) e00234. doi:10.1016/j.mec.2024.e00234

    doi:10.1016/j.mec.2024.e00234 2024

  19. [19]

    Putative regulatory sites unraveled by network-embedded thermodynamic analysis of metabolome data,

    A. Kümmel, S. Panke, and M. Heinemann, “Putative regulatory sites unraveled by network-embedded thermodynamic analysis of metabolome data,”Mol. Syst. Biol.2(2006) 2006.0034. doi:10.1038/msb4100074

    work page doi:10.1038/msb4100074 2006

  20. [20]

    Thermodynamics- based metabolic flux analysis,

    C. S. Henry, L. J. Broadbelt, and V. Hatzimanikatis, “Thermodynamics- based metabolic flux analysis,”Biophys. J.92(5) (2007) 1792–1805. doi:10.1529/biophysj.106.093138

    doi:10.1529/biophysj.106.093138 2007

  21. [21]

    Aczél,Lectures on Functional Equations and Their Applications, Math- ematics in Science and Engineering, Vol

    J. Aczél,Lectures on Functional Equations and Their Applications, Math- ematics in Science and Engineering, Vol. 19, Academic Press, New York, 1966

    1966

  22. [22]

    Rhea, the reaction knowledgebase in 2022,

    P. Bansal, A. Morgat, K. B. Axelsen, V. Muthukrishnan, E. Coudert, L. Aimo, N. Hyka-Nouspikel, E. Gasteiger, A. Kerhornou, T. B. Neto, M. Pozzato, M.-C. Blatter, A. Ignatchenko, N. Redaschi, and A. Bridge, “Rhea, the reaction knowledgebase in 2022,”Nucleic Acids Res.50(D1) (2022) D693–D700. doi:10.1093/nar/gkab1016

    doi:10.1093/nar/gkab1016 2022

  23. [23]

    ChEBI in 2016: Improved services and an expanding collection of metabolites,

    J. Hastings, G. Owen, A. Dekker, M. Ennis, N. Kale, V. Muthukrishnan, S. Turner, N. Swainston, P. Mendes, and C. Steinbeck, “ChEBI in 2016: Improved services and an expanding collection of metabolites,”Nucleic Acids Res.44(D1) (2016) D1214–D1219. doi:10.1093/nar/gkv1031

    doi:10.1093/nar/gkv1031 2016

  24. [24]

    Standards for 47 Reporting Enzyme Data: The STRENDA Consortium: What it aims to do and why it should be helpful,

    K. F. Tipton, R. N. Armstrong, B. M. Bakker, A. Bairoch, A. Cornish- Bowden, P. J. Halling, J.-H. Hofmeyr, T. S. Leyh, C. Kettner, F. M. Raushel, J. Rohwer, D. Schomburg, and C. Steinbeck, “Standards for 47 Reporting Enzyme Data: The STRENDA Consortium: What it aims to do and why it should be helpful,”Perspect. Sci.1(1–6) (2014) 131–137. doi:10.1016/j.pis...

    doi:10.1016/j.pisc.2014.02.012 2014

  25. [25]

    The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship,

    M. D. Wilkinson et al., “The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship,”Scientific Data3(2016) 160018. doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18

    doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18 2016

  26. [26]

    Disequilibrium in the triose phosphate isomerase system in rat liver,

    R. L. Veech, L. Raijman, K. Dalziel, and H. A. Krebs, “Disequilibrium in the triose phosphate isomerase system in rat liver,”Biochem. J.115(4) (1969) 837–842. doi:10.1042/bj1150837

    doi:10.1042/bj1150837 1969

  27. [27]

    Importance of product/reactant equi- libration in the kinetics of the phosphoglucose isomerization reaction by differential stopped flow microcalorimetry,

    M. Stödeman and F. P. Schwarz, “Importance of product/reactant equi- libration in the kinetics of the phosphoglucose isomerization reaction by differential stopped flow microcalorimetry,”Anal. Biochem.329(2) (2004) 307–315. doi:10.1016/j.ab.2004.03.005

    doi:10.1016/j.ab.2004.03.005 2004

  28. [28]

    The kinetics of phosphoglucoisomerase,

    S. E. Kahana, O. H. Lowry, D. W. Schulz, J. V. Passonneau, and E. J. Crawford, “The kinetics of phosphoglucoisomerase,”J. Biol. Chem. 235(8) (1960) 2178–2184. doi:10.1016/S0021-9258(18)64594-6

    doi:10.1016/s0021-9258(18)64594-6 1960

  29. [29]

    The effect of pH and temperature on the kinetic parameters of phosphoglucose isomerase,

    J. E. D. Dyson and E. A. Noltmann, “The effect of pH and temperature on the kinetic parameters of phosphoglucose isomerase,”J. Biol. Chem. 243(7) (1968) 1401–1414. doi:10.1016/S0021-9258(18)93559-3

    doi:10.1016/s0021-9258(18)93559-3 1968

  30. [30]

    Thermodynamics of the conversion of fumarate to L-(−)-malate,

    E. Gajewski, R. N. Goldberg, and D. K. Steckler, “Thermodynamics of the conversion of fumarate to L-(−)-malate,”Biophys. Chem.22(3) (1985) 187–195. doi:10.1016/0301-4622(85)80042-9

    doi:10.1016/0301-4622(85)80042-9 1985

  31. [31]

    Thermodynamics of enzyme-catalyzed reactions: Part 4. Lyases,

    R. N. Goldberg and Y. B. Tewari, “Thermodynamics of enzyme-catalyzed reactions: Part 4. Lyases,”J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data24(5) (1995) 1669–

    1995

  32. [32]

    doi:10.1063/1.555969

    doi:10.1063/1.555969

  33. [33]

    Purification and characterization of fumarase fromCorynebacterium glutamicum,

    T. Genda, S. Watabe, and H. Ozaki, “Purification and characterization of fumarase fromCorynebacterium glutamicum,”Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem.70(5) (2006) 1102–1109. doi:10.1271/bbb.70.1102

    doi:10.1271/bbb.70.1102 2006

  34. [34]

    Specificity and kinetics of triose phosphate iso- merase from chicken muscle,

    S. J. Putman, A. F. W. Coulson, I. R. T. Farley, B. Riddleston, and J. R. Knowles, “Specificity and kinetics of triose phosphate iso- merase from chicken muscle,”Biochem. J.129(2) (1972) 301–310. doi:10.1042/bj1290301. 48

    doi:10.1042/bj1290301 1972

  35. [35]

    Kinetics and thermodynamics of mandelate racemase catalysis,

    M. St Maurice and S. L. Bearne, “Kinetics and thermodynamics of mandelate racemase catalysis,”Biochemistry41(12) (2002) 4048–4058. doi:10.1021/bi016044h

    doi:10.1021/bi016044h 2002

  36. [36]

    Energetics of proline racemase: racemization of unlabeled proline in the unsaturated, satu- rated, and oversaturated regimes,

    L. M. Fisher, W. J. Albery, and J. R. Knowles, “Energetics of proline racemase: racemization of unlabeled proline in the unsaturated, satu- rated, and oversaturated regimes,”Biochemistry25(9) (1986) 2529–2537. doi:10.1021/bi00357a037

    doi:10.1021/bi00357a037 1986

  37. [37]

    Structural and functional analysis of two glutamate racemase isozymes fromBacillus anthracisand implications for inhibitor design,

    M. May, S. Mehboob, D. C. Mulhearn, Z. Wang, H. Yu, G. R. J. Thatcher, B. D. Santarsiero, M. E. Johnson, and A. D. Mesecar, “Structural and functional analysis of two glutamate racemase isozymes fromBacillus anthracisand implications for inhibitor design,”J. Mol. Biol.371(5) (2007) 1219–1237. doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2007.05.093

    doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2007.05.093 2007

  38. [38]

    Purification, cloning, and cofactor independence of glutamate racemase fromLactobacillus,

    K. A. Gallo and J. R. Knowles, “Purification, cloning, and cofactor independence of glutamate racemase fromLactobacillus,”Biochemistry 32(15) (1993) 3981–3990. doi:10.1021/bi00066a019

    doi:10.1021/bi00066a019 1993

  39. [39]

    Molecular identification of monomeric aspartate racemase from Bifidobacterium bifidum,

    T. Yamashita, M. Ashiuchi, K. Ohnishi, S. Kato, S. Nagata, and H. Misono, “Molecular identification of monomeric aspartate racemase from Bifidobacterium bifidum,”Eur. J. Biochem.271(23–24) (2004) 4798–4803. doi:10.1111/j.1432-1033.2004.04445.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1432-1033.2004.04445.x 2004

  40. [40]

    Characteri- zation of the alanine racemases fromPseudomonas aeruginosaPAO1,

    U. Strych, H.-C. Huang, K. L. Krause, and M. J. Benedik, “Characteri- zation of the alanine racemases fromPseudomonas aeruginosaPAO1,” Curr. Microbiol.41(2000) 290–294. doi:10.1007/s002840010136

    doi:10.1007/s002840010136 2000

  41. [41]

    Ther- modynamics of enzyme-catalyzed reactions: Part 1. Oxidoreductases,

    R. N. Goldberg, Y. B. Tewari, D. Bell, K. Fazio, and E. Anderson, “Ther- modynamics of enzyme-catalyzed reactions: Part 1. Oxidoreductases,”J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data22(2) (1993) 515–582. doi:10.1063/1.555939

    doi:10.1063/1.555939 1993

  42. [42]

    Lactic dehydrogenase. II. Variation of kinetic and equilibrium constants with temperature,

    M. T. Hakala, A. J. Glaid, and G. W. Schwert, “Lactic dehydrogenase. II. Variation of kinetic and equilibrium constants with temperature,”J. Biol. Chem.221(1) (1956) 191–209. doi:10.1016/S0021-9258(18)65240-8

    doi:10.1016/s0021-9258(18)65240-8 1956

  43. [43]

    The mechanism of the reaction catalysed by adenosine triphosphate–creatine phosphotransferase,

    J. F. Morrison and E. James, “The mechanism of the reaction catalysed by adenosine triphosphate–creatine phosphotransferase,”Biochem. J. 97(1) (1965) 37–52. doi:10.1042/bj0970037. 49

    doi:10.1042/bj0970037 1965

  44. [44]

    Studies of the enzyme fumarase. I. Kinetics and equilibrium,

    R. M. Bock and R. A. Alberty, “Studies of the enzyme fumarase. I. Kinetics and equilibrium,”J. Am. Chem. Soc.75(8) (1953) 1921–1925. doi:10.1021/ja01104a043

    doi:10.1021/ja01104a043 1953

  45. [45]

    Characterization of the kinetics of cardiac cytosolic malate dehydrogenase and comparative analysis of cytosolic and mitochondrial isoforms,

    S. K. Dasika, K. C. Vinnakota, and D. A. Beard, “Characterization of the kinetics of cardiac cytosolic malate dehydrogenase and comparative analysis of cytosolic and mitochondrial isoforms,”Biophys. J.108(2) (2015) 420–430. doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2014.11.3466

    doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2014.11.3466 2015

  46. [46]

    Determination of the catalytic mechanism for mitochondrial malate dehydrogenase,

    S. K. Dasika, K. C. Vinnakota, and D. A. Beard, “Determination of the catalytic mechanism for mitochondrial malate dehydrogenase,”Biophys. J.108(2) (2015) 408–419. doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2014.11.3467

    doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2014.11.3467 2015

  47. [47]

    Malic dehydrogenase. II. Kinetic stud- ies of the reaction mechanism,

    D. N. Raval and R. G. Wolfe, “Malic dehydrogenase. II. Kinetic stud- ies of the reaction mechanism,”Biochemistry1(2) (1962) 263–269. doi:10.1021/bi00908a012

    doi:10.1021/bi00908a012 1962

  48. [48]

    Equilibrium constants of the malate dehydrogenase, citrate synthase, citrate lyase, and acetyl coenzyme A hydrolysis reactions under physiological conditions,

    R. W. Guynn, H. J. Gelberg, and R. L. Veech, “Equilibrium constants of the malate dehydrogenase, citrate synthase, citrate lyase, and acetyl coenzyme A hydrolysis reactions under physiological conditions,”J. Biol. Chem.248(20) (1973) 6957–6965. doi:10.1016/S0021-9258(19)43346-2

    doi:10.1016/s0021-9258(19)43346-2 1973

  49. [49]

    Henri–Michaelis–Menten kinetics of reversible en- zymic reactions, and the determination of rate constants from kinetic constants,

    E. A. Barnsley, “Henri–Michaelis–Menten kinetics of reversible en- zymic reactions, and the determination of rate constants from kinetic constants,”Sci. Prog.105(2) (2022) 00368504221100027. doi:10.1177/00368504221100027

    doi:10.1177/00368504221100027 2022

  50. [50]

    Auditing Haldane Consistency in Reversible Enzyme Ki- netics: A Curated Two-Sided Backbone and a Labeled Fold-Error Bench- mark

    [software/data] M. Simons and J. Washburn,Haldane Consistency as a Reciprocal Reporting Scale for Reversible Enzyme Kinetics: A Curated Benchmark — code and curated data, Zenodo, versionv1.4, 2026. This software/data archive uses a shorter repository title and accompanies the manuscript “Auditing Haldane Consistency in Reversible Enzyme Ki- netics: A Cura...

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.21084024 2026