Skip to main content

Research Repository

Advanced Search

'Partial' competition of heterobivalent ligand binding may be mistaken for allosteric interactions: a comparison of different target interaction models

Vauquelin, Georges; Hall, David; Charlton, Steven

Authors

Georges Vauquelin

David Hall

Profile image of STEVEN CHARLTON

STEVEN CHARLTON Steven.Charlton@nottingham.ac.uk
Professor of Molecular Pharmacology and Drug Discovery



Abstract

© 2014 The British Pharmacological Society. Background and Purpose Non-competitive drugs that confer allosteric modulation of orthosteric ligand binding are of increasing interest as therapeutic agents. Sought-after advantages include a ceiling level to drug effect and greater receptor-subtype selectivity. It is thus important to determine the mode of interaction of newly identified receptor ligands early in the drug discovery process and binding studies with labelled orthosteric ligands constitute a traditional approach for this. According to the general allosteric ternary complex model, allosteric ligands that exhibit negative cooperativity may generate distinctive 'competition' curves: they will not reach baseline levels and their nadir will increase in par with the orthosteric ligand concentration. This behaviour is often considered a key hallmark of allosteric interactions. Experimental Approach The present study is based on differential equation-based simulations. Key Results The differential equation-based simulations revealed that the same 'competition binding' pattern was also obtained when a monovalent ligand binds to one of the target sites of a heterobivalent ligand, even if this process is exempt of allosteric interactions. This pattern was not strictly reciprocal when the binding of each of the ligands was recorded. The prominence of this phenomenon may vary from one heterobivalent ligand to another and we suggest that this phenomenon may take place with ligands that have been proposed to bind according to 'two-domain' and 'charnière' models. Conclusions and Implications The present findings indicate a familiar experimental situation where bivalency may give rise to observations that could inadvertently be interpreted as allosteric binding. Yet, both mechanisms could be differentiated based on alternative experiments and structural considerations.

Journal Article Type Article
Acceptance Date Dec 14, 2014
Online Publication Date Dec 24, 2014
Publication Date May 1, 2015
Deposit Date Mar 16, 2018
Print ISSN 0007-1188
Electronic ISSN 1476-5381
Publisher Wiley
Peer Reviewed Peer Reviewed
Volume 172
Issue 9
Pages 2300-2315
DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/bph.13053
Public URL https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1107689
Publisher URL https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bph.13053
PMID 00035280