ArticleBritish journal of pharmacology2015
'Partial' competition of heterobivalent ligand binding may be mistaken for allosteric interactions: a comparison of different target interaction models.
Article in British journal of pharmacology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Divalent ligand-monovalent molecule binding.Soft matter · 2021Article
- G Protein-Coupled Receptors in Asthma Therapy: Pharmacology and Drug Action.Pharmacological reviews · 2020Review
- Distinct in vivo target occupancy by bivalent- and induced-fit-like binding drugs.British journal of pharmacology · 2017Article
- Bitopic fluorescent antagonists of the AMedChemComm · 2017Article
- What Do Structures Tell Us About Chemokine Receptor Function and Antagonism?Annual review of biophysics · 2017Review
- On the different experimental manifestations of two-state 'induced-fit' binding of drugs to their cellular targets.British journal of pharmacology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeNon-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
resultsThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.