Earl Sutherland won the Nobel prize for discovering how epinephrine stimulates the breakdown of glycogen, a molecule that belongs to the carbohydrate family of macromolecules. Glycogen is abundant in liver and in muscle cells and is stored in glycogen granules. When epinephrine interacts with the liver cells it triggers a signal transduction cascade that leads to activation of glycogen phosphorylase and production of glucose-1-phosphate molecules. The glucose-1-phosphate molecules are then used for glycolysis to produce energy in the liver cell. To decipher the signal transduction pathway that triggers the breakdown of glycogen Sutherland and his colleagues used a test tube, the enzyme glycogen phosphorylase, epinephrine and glycogen. In this experiment he observed that no glucose-1-phosphate was formed. Why do you think this happened?

There was no receptor for epinephrine to associate with and invigorate the sign transduction course that prompts the actuation of the compound  

By and large, Earl Sutherland helped in translating and discovering the breakdown of the glycogen into glucose-1-phosphate in nearness of glycogen phosphorylase and this sign course pathway is activated by the epinephrine. The epinephrine doesn't have the correct receptor to discover and start the sign transduction process and thus glucose-1-phoshate isn't shaped. It requires CAMP which is again a second delivery person for starting the entire of the transduction procedure.

i believe the correct answer from the choices listed above is the first option. the scientists need to look at the   validity of data, claims, hypotheses, and observations before  developing an argument. they base their arguments on facts that are present and they make sure they have proofs. 

explanation: