A CRITIQUE OF COMPARTMENTAL ANALYSIS

Abstract

In 10 years, fro.m 1969 thro.ugh 1978, 341 articles were indexed under compartmental analysis. There must be many times that number in which data were analyzed by compartmental analysis but are no.t retrieved by searching o.nly under that rubric. This article is no.t a review o.f tho.se reports; it is a critique of uses and underlying co.ncepts of compartmental analysis. Most of the appraisal o.f compartmental analy­ sis in this critique has been made previo.usly by o.thers; there have been co.nferences and sympo.sia (4, 49) o.n the subject, as well as many thoughtful individual studies. Despite the fact that caveats were pub­ lished-some repeatedly-Io.ng eno.ugh ago. to. be well-kno.wn, even a casual thumbing thro.ugh pages o.f current jo.urnals sho.ws that misco.n­ ceptions and misapplicatio.ns persist. This c ritique is meant to. be helpful to. autho.rs, edito.rs, and referees o.f manuscripts, but experience suggests that the aim will no.t be entirely fulfilled. There are twO. recent examples in related areas. In 1965, Do.wd & Riggs (11), after analysis of the three co.mmon methods for graphic estimate of parameters of enzyme kinetics, concluded that the Lineweaver-Burk plo.t was most likely to' mislead. Despite this publica­ tion in a widely distributed journal of biochemistry, an informal count among recent publications showed that the Lineweaver-Burk plot was still used most often. The second example is a repo.rt by Nerby et al (32) that more than 50 papers concerning nonlinear Scatchard plots, pub­ lished in 5 well-regarded journals during a 4-year period, misinterpreted the data, usually owing to incorrect graphic analysis, despite the fact that descriptions and examples of correct procedure have appeared in print repeatedly since at least 1942.