e. we aim to identify all the different names in use for an enzyme and collect this information at one place: the BRENDA database (Chang et al., 2009 and Scheer et al., 2011). During the manual selleck screening library annotation or the literature search the curators extract systematically all names and synonyms that are used for a specific enzyme except those that are totally meaningless (such as quantum for EC 3.1.3.26, or HAT for 2.3.1.32, or DDT for EC 4.1.1.84). These are in later update rounds used as search terms for the identification of relevant literature. As a result

BRENDA is good source for enzyme synonyms storing about 82,000 different enzyme names for the around 5200 enzymes classified. This number clearly shows the dramatic problems: on average each EC class is recorded with 15

different names. This means that a literature search with any particular check details enzyme name on average finds only 1/15, i.e., less than 8% of the relevant literature. Only 20% out of the EC classes are listed with only the accepted name plus a systematic name. 10% out of the EC classes carry only one synonym and 40% are recorded with 2–5 synonyms. Looking at these enzymes it is a general observation that enzymes with a low number of synonyms very often possess a rather narrow substrate specificity or even are specific for a single substrate. Some have been identified in the secondary metabolism of a single plant and are absent from plants in taxonomically related species. 61 EC classes are stored with more than 100 different names, where 30 have more than 150 names (see Table 1). There are different reasons for the large number of different names. If we consider the protein kinases we find very high numbers of synonyms, each for an individual protein catalysing the phosphate transfer either to tyrosine, serine, threonine or histidine. Since the reaction which is the basis for classification is identical, the enzymes are assembled under just a few EC numbers but are named for the individual role they play in different organisms. In organism 1 Interleukin-2 receptor they could, e.g., phosphorylate a specific protein at a specific position, in organism 2 the same enzyme could phosphorylate

a different protein. As long as the substrate specificity is not thoroughly analysed they are classified in the same EC-number. This could change in the future once it is proven that they have distinctly different substrate specificities. It is obvious from the table that especially for enzymes modifying proteins or other macromolecules many different names are in use. A different situation is found in the cellulase case, for example. The number of different substrates accepted here is very small, being mainly amorphous or crystalline cellulose. 220 different names are presently in use in the literature. In this case the cellulose breakdown is achieved by a combination/cooperation of a number of isoenzymes. For these isoenzymes different terms are in use in the different organisms.