Kinetic tools for the identification of ligand–receptor interaction mechanisms; pp 202–213Full article in PDF format
Tools for the identification of receptor–ligand interaction mechanisms were developed by mathematical modeling of the influence of a ligand on the kinetics of a reporter ligand binding with a receptor. This approach allows kinetic differentiation between ligands of both rapid and slow binding modes, but also distinguishes compounds that share the same binding site with the reporter ligand or bind non-competitively to a distinct binding site. In order to simulate the kinetic behavior of this system, a mathematical model comprising ordinary differential equations was derived and solved numerically.
1. Strickland, S., Palmer, G., and Massey, V. Determination of dissociation constants and specific rate constants of enzyme–substrate (or protein–ligand) interactions from rapid reaction kinetic data. J. Biol. Chem. 1975, 250(11), 4048–4052.
2. Guo, D., Hillger, J. M., Ijzerman, A, P, and Heitman, L. H. Drug-target residence time – a case for G protein-coupled receptors. Med. Res. Rev., 2014, 34(4), 856–892.
3. Copeland, R. A. The drug-target residence time model: a 10-year retrospective. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov., 2016, 15(2), 87–95.
4. Järv, J., Hedlund, B., and Bartfai, T. Isomerization of the muscarinic receptor . antagonist complex. J. Biol. Chem., 1979, 254(13), 5595–5598.
5. Dowling, M. R. and Charlton, S. J. Quantifying the association and dissociation rates of unlabelled antagonists at the muscarinic M3 receptor. Br. J. Pharmacol., 2006, 148, 927–937.
6. Schliebs, R. and Bigl, V. Kinetics of the interaction of dihydroalprenolol with beta-adrenergic receptors in rat cerebral-cortex. Gen. Physiol. Biophys., 1984, 3(1), 31–46.
7. Lepiku, M., Rinken, A., Järv, J., and Fuxe, K. Kinetic evidence for isomerization of the dopamine receptor-raclopride complex. Neurochem. Int., 1996, 28(5–6), 591–595.
8. Oras, A. and Järv, J. Kinetics of [35S]dATPaS interaction with P2Y1 purinoceptor in rat brain membranes. Neurosci Lett., 2004, 355, 9–12.
9. Stepanov, V. and Järv, J. Slow isomerization step in the interaction between mouse dopamine transporter and dopamine re-uptake inhibitor N-(3-iodoprop-2E-enyl)-2β-carbo-[3H]methoxy-3β-(4'-methylphenyl)nortropane. Neurosci Lett., 2006, 410(3), 218–221.
10. Kukk, S. and Järv, J. Differentiating between drugs with short and long residence times. MedChemComm, 2016, 7(8), 1654–1656.
11. Järv, J., Hedlund, B., and Bartfai, T. Kinetic studies on muscarinic antagonist-agonist competition. J. Biol. Chem., 1980, 255(7), 2649–2651.
12. Cheng, Y-C. and Prusoff, W. H. Relationship between the inhibition constant (Ki) and the concentration of inhibitor which causes 50 per cent inhibition (I50) of an enzymatic reaction. Biochem. Pharmacol., 1973, 22, 3099–3108.
13. Motulsky, H. J. and Mahan, L. C. The kinetics of competitive radioligand binding predicted by the law of mass action. Mol. Pharmacol. ASPET, 1984, 25(1), 1–9.
14. Wanant, S. and Quon, M. J. Insulin receptor binding kinetics: Modeling and simulation studies. J. Theor. Biol., 2000, 205(3), 355–364.
15. Wittmann, H.-J. and Strasser, A. Competitive association binding kinetic assays: a new tool to detect two different binding orientations of a ligand to its target protein under distinct conditions? Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch. Pharmacol., 2017, 1–18.
Back to Issue