Free Radical Biology & Medicine, Vol. 12, pp. 93-95, 1992 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
0891-5849/92 $5.00 + .00 Copyright © 1992 Pergamon Press plc
Letters to the Editor COMMENTS ON REVIEW OF FREE RADICALS IN BIOLOGY M E D I C I N E , SECOND EDITION, BY BARRY HALLIWELL AND JOHN M . C. GUTTERIDGE
AND
JOHN M. C. GUTTERIOGE* and BARRYHALLIWELL~ *OxygenChemistryLab, RoyalBromptonNationalHeart and LungHospitals,LondonSW3 6NP, U.K. ~'Pulmonary-CriticaiCare Medicine,UC DavisMedicalCenter, Sacramento,CA 95817, U.S.A.
(Received 23 August 1991;Accepted 20 September 1991)
To the Editors: We are pleased that FRBM chose to review the second edition of our text Free Radicals in Biology and Medicine but feel that the reviewer's normal lucidity and generosity may have deserted him during the writing of his review (Free Rad. Biol. Med. 10:449450; 1991). He criticizes the book as not being a textbook suitable for LSU college students. A textbook is apparently defined as a book containing all the necessary course material and references for a particular course in the subject. It would be impossible for a generally published text to fit all courses at different universities; that is why many instructors "tailor-make" course handbooks for sale to students by compiling work from several sources (copyright laws permitting). The best person to write a text for Baton Rouge students would be the reviewer himself! Our book is not intended to be a college text: its aim is clearly stated in the preface. We have agonized over the question of citing individual references in the text. Since so many references would need to be cited this could only be done using an abbreviated reference format (no titles), but we feel that reference titles are valuable. Since space is limited, we chose an expanded list of "further reading," for students (and others) to use as they think fit. More seriously, the reviewer misquotes us in several places• We do not recommend use of the term "alkoxy radicals." We state (page 2 0 1 ) . . . "to form an alkoxyl radical (often shortened to alkoxy radical)." This is a statement of fact, not an endorsement. As far as lipid peroxidation is concerned, the terms
initiation, propagation and termination were introduced some 50 years ago, yet different authors use them to mean different things. Thus "when iron or copper salts are added to membranes, peroxidation is initiated" is a statement frequently seen in the literature. "Enzyme-initiated lipid peroxidation" is certainly inappropriate to refer to the case in which enzymically-produced 02-" reduces ferric iron to ferrous, which then decomposes a pre-existing lipid hydroperoxide. We do not say that conversion of a lipid to a hydroperoxide by lipoxygenase is an initiation: what we say (page 213) is "the e n z y m e s . . , catalyse the controlled peroxidation of their fatty acid substrates to give . . . ( p e r o x i d e s ) . . . that are stereospecific .". What we tried to do in chapter 4 was to sort out the mess by carefully defining "initiation" as abstraction of the first hydrogen atom from a peroxide-free lipid substrate. Others will use our definitions if they like them and reject them if they do not. The reviewer defines initiation as a process by which free radicals are produced. (No argument is allowed! This is a fact.) Most scientists in the field would say that abstraction of H" from a lipid by a reactive radical (dare we mention OH" ?) is initiation of peroxidation. •
.
Lipid-H + OH" ---* H20 + Lipid" But there is no net production of radicals: hence the reviewer's definition makes this propagation, not initiation, and we are in an even worse mess.
93
94
Letters to the Editor
We are sorry to learn that our book will be of little help to students at Baton Rouge, but take comfort
from the fact that it is already in use at m a n y distinguished universities worldwide.
Barry Halliwell
John M. C. Gutteridge
Pulmonary-Critical Care Medicine UC Davis Medical Center Sacramento, CA 95817 U.S.A.
Oxygen Chemistry Lab Royal Brompton National Heart and Lung Hospitals London SW3 6NP, UK
REPLY
TO
DRS.
HALLIWELL
AND
GUTTERIDGE
WILLIAM A. PRYOR Biodynamics Institute, Louisiana State University,711 Choppin Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803-1800, U.S.A.
(Received 17 September 1991;Accepted20 September 1991) Dear Sirs: I am greatly distressed that my review o f the Second Edition o f Free Radicals in Biology and Medicine, the new edition o f the important text by Barry Halliwell and John Gutteridge, appears to be ungenerous to the authors. This pair of authors is among the most prolific and successful authors we have in our field, and all o f us, certainly including myself, very much want their textbook to be both popular and useful. I found m a n y things to praise in the book; m y review (published in FRBM 10:449-450; 1991") contains the following statements. This is a very welcome second edition of the only modem textbook in the field of free radical b i o l o g y . . . For the general reader i n t e r e s t e d . . . [in] free radical biology, this book has no peers. (p. 449) • . . this book has several things going for it. First, every single topic you can think of is c o v e r e d . . . Another admirable feature of the book is the seemingly effortless ability with which these two authors write about every subject in biochemistry and biology that is relevant to free radical biology. (p. 449) This is an unusually important book . . . . It certainly has f l a w s . . . Nevertheless. . . . I'll tell my students to buy it and read it. (p. 450) As for professionals in the field• . . you all will enjoy reading this book. The paperback edition is very reasonably priced, and I highly recommend that you buy yourself a personal copy. (p. 450) This book is a most important addition to the literature in free radical biology. It is thorough, all inclu-
* On the firstpageof the reviewitself,page449, the volume number is incorrectlyprinted as 15; the reviewactually is in volume 10.
sive, and very well done. It has already achieved the distinction of being the "first reference" cited in many research articles. The authors feel I did not appreciate why they wrote the type o f book they did. They say: " O u r book is not intended to be a college text•" But, I was aware of that. My review says: The principle audience the authors have aimed at are not students, but rather appears to be physicians and biologists • . . who want to know more [about free radicals]. The authors say in their preface: 'This book is aimed mainly at biologists and clinicians.' For these more sophisticated readers, this book may be just the ticket• (p. 449) The authors state that I " . . . criticize the book as not being a textbook suitable for LSU college students ." If this is what I appear to have done, I expressed myself horribly indeed• I meant to say (quoting the review): " . . . [this book] has flaws--flaws that force me to disappointedly conclude that it will be little help to graduate students in chemistry or biochemistry..." (p. 450) That is, I do not see this book as being a very useful textbook for American graduate students, and that is a huge disappointment to me. Willem Koppenol and I were planning to use this book as our text in a graduate class here, and I made special arrangements with Oxford Press and Barry HaUiwell to get a copy as soon as it came off the presses. After reading it, however, I forsaw problems in using it in a graduate course, and I wrote Barry Halliwell about m y view o f the difficulties. (In fact, I sent both Barry and John a copy o f the published review o f their text before it went to press and invited their comments; unfortunately, I heard none.) •
.
0891-5849/92 $5.00 + .00 Copyright © 1992 Pergamon Press plc
Letters to the Editor COMMENTS ON REVIEW OF FREE RADICALS IN BIOLOGY M E D I C I N E , SECOND EDITION, BY BARRY HALLIWELL AND JOHN M . C. GUTTERIDGE
AND
JOHN M. C. GUTTERIOGE* and BARRYHALLIWELL~ *OxygenChemistryLab, RoyalBromptonNationalHeart and LungHospitals,LondonSW3 6NP, U.K. ~'Pulmonary-CriticaiCare Medicine,UC DavisMedicalCenter, Sacramento,CA 95817, U.S.A.
(Received 23 August 1991;Accepted 20 September 1991)
To the Editors: We are pleased that FRBM chose to review the second edition of our text Free Radicals in Biology and Medicine but feel that the reviewer's normal lucidity and generosity may have deserted him during the writing of his review (Free Rad. Biol. Med. 10:449450; 1991). He criticizes the book as not being a textbook suitable for LSU college students. A textbook is apparently defined as a book containing all the necessary course material and references for a particular course in the subject. It would be impossible for a generally published text to fit all courses at different universities; that is why many instructors "tailor-make" course handbooks for sale to students by compiling work from several sources (copyright laws permitting). The best person to write a text for Baton Rouge students would be the reviewer himself! Our book is not intended to be a college text: its aim is clearly stated in the preface. We have agonized over the question of citing individual references in the text. Since so many references would need to be cited this could only be done using an abbreviated reference format (no titles), but we feel that reference titles are valuable. Since space is limited, we chose an expanded list of "further reading," for students (and others) to use as they think fit. More seriously, the reviewer misquotes us in several places• We do not recommend use of the term "alkoxy radicals." We state (page 2 0 1 ) . . . "to form an alkoxyl radical (often shortened to alkoxy radical)." This is a statement of fact, not an endorsement. As far as lipid peroxidation is concerned, the terms
initiation, propagation and termination were introduced some 50 years ago, yet different authors use them to mean different things. Thus "when iron or copper salts are added to membranes, peroxidation is initiated" is a statement frequently seen in the literature. "Enzyme-initiated lipid peroxidation" is certainly inappropriate to refer to the case in which enzymically-produced 02-" reduces ferric iron to ferrous, which then decomposes a pre-existing lipid hydroperoxide. We do not say that conversion of a lipid to a hydroperoxide by lipoxygenase is an initiation: what we say (page 213) is "the e n z y m e s . . , catalyse the controlled peroxidation of their fatty acid substrates to give . . . ( p e r o x i d e s ) . . . that are stereospecific .". What we tried to do in chapter 4 was to sort out the mess by carefully defining "initiation" as abstraction of the first hydrogen atom from a peroxide-free lipid substrate. Others will use our definitions if they like them and reject them if they do not. The reviewer defines initiation as a process by which free radicals are produced. (No argument is allowed! This is a fact.) Most scientists in the field would say that abstraction of H" from a lipid by a reactive radical (dare we mention OH" ?) is initiation of peroxidation. •
.
Lipid-H + OH" ---* H20 + Lipid" But there is no net production of radicals: hence the reviewer's definition makes this propagation, not initiation, and we are in an even worse mess.
93
94
Letters to the Editor
We are sorry to learn that our book will be of little help to students at Baton Rouge, but take comfort
from the fact that it is already in use at m a n y distinguished universities worldwide.
Barry Halliwell
John M. C. Gutteridge
Pulmonary-Critical Care Medicine UC Davis Medical Center Sacramento, CA 95817 U.S.A.
Oxygen Chemistry Lab Royal Brompton National Heart and Lung Hospitals London SW3 6NP, UK
REPLY
TO
DRS.
HALLIWELL
AND
GUTTERIDGE
WILLIAM A. PRYOR Biodynamics Institute, Louisiana State University,711 Choppin Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803-1800, U.S.A.
(Received 17 September 1991;Accepted20 September 1991) Dear Sirs: I am greatly distressed that my review o f the Second Edition o f Free Radicals in Biology and Medicine, the new edition o f the important text by Barry Halliwell and John Gutteridge, appears to be ungenerous to the authors. This pair of authors is among the most prolific and successful authors we have in our field, and all o f us, certainly including myself, very much want their textbook to be both popular and useful. I found m a n y things to praise in the book; m y review (published in FRBM 10:449-450; 1991") contains the following statements. This is a very welcome second edition of the only modem textbook in the field of free radical b i o l o g y . . . For the general reader i n t e r e s t e d . . . [in] free radical biology, this book has no peers. (p. 449) • . . this book has several things going for it. First, every single topic you can think of is c o v e r e d . . . Another admirable feature of the book is the seemingly effortless ability with which these two authors write about every subject in biochemistry and biology that is relevant to free radical biology. (p. 449) This is an unusually important book . . . . It certainly has f l a w s . . . Nevertheless. . . . I'll tell my students to buy it and read it. (p. 450) As for professionals in the field• . . you all will enjoy reading this book. The paperback edition is very reasonably priced, and I highly recommend that you buy yourself a personal copy. (p. 450) This book is a most important addition to the literature in free radical biology. It is thorough, all inclu-
* On the firstpageof the reviewitself,page449, the volume number is incorrectlyprinted as 15; the reviewactually is in volume 10.
sive, and very well done. It has already achieved the distinction of being the "first reference" cited in many research articles. The authors feel I did not appreciate why they wrote the type o f book they did. They say: " O u r book is not intended to be a college text•" But, I was aware of that. My review says: The principle audience the authors have aimed at are not students, but rather appears to be physicians and biologists • . . who want to know more [about free radicals]. The authors say in their preface: 'This book is aimed mainly at biologists and clinicians.' For these more sophisticated readers, this book may be just the ticket• (p. 449) The authors state that I " . . . criticize the book as not being a textbook suitable for LSU college students ." If this is what I appear to have done, I expressed myself horribly indeed• I meant to say (quoting the review): " . . . [this book] has flaws--flaws that force me to disappointedly conclude that it will be little help to graduate students in chemistry or biochemistry..." (p. 450) That is, I do not see this book as being a very useful textbook for American graduate students, and that is a huge disappointment to me. Willem Koppenol and I were planning to use this book as our text in a graduate class here, and I made special arrangements with Oxford Press and Barry HaUiwell to get a copy as soon as it came off the presses. After reading it, however, I forsaw problems in using it in a graduate course, and I wrote Barry Halliwell about m y view o f the difficulties. (In fact, I sent both Barry and John a copy o f the published review o f their text before it went to press and invited their comments; unfortunately, I heard none.) •
.
