Isoprostane nomenclature: Inherent problems may cause setbacks for the development of the isoprostanoid field

Do we have to bother about the isoprostane nomenclature? The widely accepted IUPAC isoprostane nomenclature provides an unambiguous and systematic terminology to name all theoretical possible isoprostanes. However, the currently accepted nomenclature system provides an unnatural framework which is not well suited to address certain biologically relevant questions. Artificial categorization of isoprostanoids into prostanoid families disrupts prostaglandin-ring core structures needed to describe biogenetic precursor–product relationships. In addition, the IUPAC system defines isoprostanoid families which comprise chemically heterogeneous isoprostanoids which largely differ in their physicochemical properties from those of the corresponding prostaglandins. As a result of this, alternative nomenclature systems such as the phytoprostane nomenclature system overcoming some inherent problems of the IUPAC nomenclature are still in use. However, different naming of isoprostanoids especially the classification of prostanoid family names has created considerable confusion. Therefore, a cautionary note on the current use of different nomenclature systems is necessary.