Regular readers of this blog will know that I have an interest, which some might term an obsession, with units. At high school in Trinidad, we had the importance of units beaten into us by the Holy Ghost Fathers and, for some of the more refractory cases, the beating was quite literal. I was taught physics by the much loved, although somewhat highly-strung, Fr. Knolly Knox (aka Knox By Night) who, as Dean of the First Form, used to give 'licks' with a cane of hibiscus (presumably chosen for its tensile properties). You quickly learned not to mess with The Holy Ghost Fathers, especially the Principal, Fr. Arthur Lai Fook (

What we learned from the Holy Ghost Fathers was that most physical quantities have dimensions and if the quantities on the opposite sides of the 'equal sign' in an equation have different dimensions then it is a sign of an unforced error rather than a penetrating insight. For example the dimensions of force are MLT

I have blogged ( 1 | 2 | 3 ) about how building the a concentration unit into the definition of ligand efficiency (LE) results in a metric that is physically meaningless (even though it remains a useful instrument of propaganda) and, for the masochists among you, there's also the LE metric critique in JCAMD. The problem can be linked to a lack of recognition of the fact that logarithms can only be calculated for numbers (which lack units). However, LE has another 'units issue' which is connected with the fact that it is a molar energy that is scaled in the definition of LE rather than pIC

Let's take a look at this NRDD article on LE metrics and I'd like you to go straight to Box 1 (Ligand efficiency metrics). Six numbered equations are shown in Box 1 and it is stated towards the end of the first paragraph that

To be honest, I think that Box 1 is probably beyond repair by conventional erratum and I'll back this opinion with an example:

*aka*Jap), and it was a brave student who responded to the request by Fr. Pedro Valdez to define the dyne by answering, "Fah, it what happen after living". Fr. Pedro was a gentle soul although his brother, Fr. Toba, who taught me Latin, would lob a blackboard eraser with reproducible inaccuracy at any student who had the temerity to doze off during the Second Punic War while Hannibal and his elephants were steamrollering the hapless legions of Gaius Flaminius into Lake Trasimene. At least we didn't have detention at my school. Actually we did have detention only it was called 'penance'. Each and every student also had a Judgement Book in which was entered a mark (out of 10) for each subject each and every week. A mark of 5 (or less) or a failure to return one's Judgement Book, duly signed by parent or guardian, by Wednesday morning earned the transgressor a corrective package of Licks and Penance. As a thoughtful child, I managed to shield my parents from this irksome bureaucracy and, in any case, it was simply safer that The Holy Ghost Fathers were never given the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the authentic parental signatures.What we learned from the Holy Ghost Fathers was that most physical quantities have dimensions and if the quantities on the opposite sides of the 'equal sign' in an equation have different dimensions then it is a sign of an unforced error rather than a penetrating insight. For example the dimensions of force are MLT

^{-2 }(M = mass; L = length; T = time) and you are free to express forces in newtons, dynes or poundals as you prefer. You can think of a physical quantity as a number multiplied by a unit and, without the unit, the number is meaningless. Units are extremely important but at the same time they are arbitrary in the sense that if your physical insight changes when you change a unit then it is neither physical nor an insight. Here's a good illustration of why dimensional analysis matters.I have blogged ( 1 | 2 | 3 ) about how building the a concentration unit into the definition of ligand efficiency (LE) results in a metric that is physically meaningless (even though it remains a useful instrument of propaganda) and, for the masochists among you, there's also the LE metric critique in JCAMD. The problem can be linked to a lack of recognition of the fact that logarithms can only be calculated for numbers (which lack units). However, LE has another 'units issue' which is connected with the fact that it is a molar energy that is scaled in the definition of LE rather than pIC

_{50}or pK_{d}. This needn't be an issue but, unfortunately, it is. LE is defined by dividing a molar energy by the number of non-hydrogen atoms in the molecular structure and there is nothing in the definition of LE that says that the energy has to be expressed in any particular unit. This means that you can define LE using any energy unit that you want to. Some 'experts' appear to believe that dividing a molar energy by number of non-hydrogen atoms relieves them of the responsibility to report units. I'm referring, of course, to the practise of multiplying pIC_{50}or pK_{d}by 1.37 when calculating LE. You might ask why people do this, especially given that 'experts' tout the simplicity of LE and they don't multiply pIC_{50}or pK_{d}by 1.37 when they calculate LipE/LLE. Don't ask me because I'm neither expert nor 'expert'.Let's take a look at this NRDD article on LE metrics and I'd like you to go straight to Box 1 (Ligand efficiency metrics). Six numbered equations are shown in Box 1 and it is stated towards the end of the first paragraph that

*"each equation corresponds to a mathematically valid function"*. This statement is incorrect because the first equation (1) in Box 1 is not a mathematically valid function. The reason for this is that the logarithm function cannot take as its argument a quantity, such as K_{d}, that has units. Equation (5), which defines LLE_{AT, }is mathematically valid although it differs from the mathematically ambiguous equation that was originally used to define LLE_{AT}.To be honest, I think that Box 1 is probably beyond repair by conventional erratum and I'll back this opinion with an example:

"

*Assuming standard conditions of aqueous solution at 300K, neutral pH and remaining concentrations of 1M,**–2.303RTlog(K*_{d}/C°) approximates to –1.37 × log(K_{d}) kcal/mol."
At my school in Trinidad this would have been called a 'ratch' and, once detected, it would have earned its perpetrator a corrective package of Licks and Penance. I don't think even the Holy Ghost Fathers could have exorcised a concentration unit quite this efficiently.

I'd now like to talk a bit about the 'p' operator that we use to transform IC

The 'p' operator has a 1 M concentration built into it. Although this choice of unit is arbitrary, it doesn't cause any problems if you're doing sensible things (e.g. subtracting them from each other) with the pK

I'd like you take a look at another article which also has a Box 1 although I won't bother you with another tiresome 'spot the errors' quiz. The equation that I'll focus on is:

pK

This equation describes the decomposition of affinity into enthalpic and entropic contributions and you might think this means that you can write:

K

As Prof. Pauli would have observed, this is an error in the 'not even wrong' category and it is clear that a difference in opinion as to the importance of units was as much responsible for the unraveling of the Austro-Hungarian empire as that unfortunate wrong turn in pre-SatNav Sarajevo. The 'p' operator implies that each of K

It is actually possible to decompose K

This is probably a good point to wrap things up. My advice to all the authors of the featured NRDD and FMC articles is that they read (and make sure that they understand) the section of this article that is entitled

May I wish all readers a happy, successful and metric-free 2017.

I'd now like to talk a bit about the 'p' operator that we use to transform IC

_{50}and K_{d}values into logarithms. This makes it much easier to perceive structure-activity relationships and provides a better representation of measurement precision than when the IC_{50}and K_{d}values themselves are used. To calculate pK_{d,}, first express K_{d }in molar concentration units, dump the units and calculate minus the logarithm of the number. I realize that this may come across as arm waving but the process of converting K_{d,}to pK_{d,}can actually be expressed exactly in mathematical terms as follows:
pK

_{d}= –log_{10}(K_{d}/M)_{d}values. If, however, you're doing silly things (e.g. dividing them by numbers of non-hydrogen atoms) with the pK_{d}values then the plot starts to unravel faster than you can say 'Brexit means Brexit'.I'd like you take a look at another article which also has a Box 1 although I won't bother you with another tiresome 'spot the errors' quiz. The equation that I'll focus on is:

pK

_{d}= pK_{H +}pK_{S}This equation describes the decomposition of affinity into enthalpic and entropic contributions and you might think this means that you can write:

K

_{d}= K_{H }*×*_{ }K_{S}As Prof. Pauli would have observed, this is an error in the 'not even wrong' category and it is clear that a difference in opinion as to the importance of units was as much responsible for the unraveling of the Austro-Hungarian empire as that unfortunate wrong turn in pre-SatNav Sarajevo. The 'p' operator implies that each of K

_{d}, K_{H }and K_{S }has units of concentration. However, multiplying two such quantities will give a quantity that has units of concentration squared.It is actually possible to decompose K

_{d}into enthalpic and entropic contributions a valid manner but you need to be thinking carefully about the meaning of the standard state. As noted previously DG° depends on the concentration used to define the standard state. This is a consequence of the dependence of DS° on the standard concentration and DH is independent of the standard concentration (the standard state is assumed to be a dilute solution). This suggests defining K_{S }as quantity with units of concentration and K_{H }as a quantity without units.This is probably a good point to wrap things up. My advice to all the authors of the featured NRDD and FMC articles is that they read (and make sure that they understand) the section of this article that is entitled

*'8. Ligand Efficiency and Additivity Analysis of Binding Free Energy'.*This advice is especially relevant for those of the authors who consider themselves to be experts in thermodyamics.May I wish all readers a happy, successful and metric-free 2017.