Search

Classical methods for the estimation of antagonist affinity constants were developed under the assumption of one unique state for the receptor. The finding of receptor constitutive activity, which implies that at least two (one active and the other inactive) receptor states coexist at equilibrium, extended the concept of antagonism by distinguishing between neutral antagonists and inverse agonists. To account for the complexity introduced in the concept of antagonism, classical Schild and Cheng-Prusoff methods have been revisited within the two-state model of agonism. The resulting equations match the classical expressions for neutral antagonists but not for inverse agonists. It is suggested a revision of current routine procedures for antagonist affinity estimation.

The mechanism by which enzymes produce enormous rate enhancements in the reactions they catalyze remains unknown. Two viewpoints, selection of ground state conformations and stabilization of the transition state, are present in the literature in apparent opposition. To provide more insight into current discussion about enzyme efficiency, a two-state model of enzyme catalysis was developed. The model was designed to include both the pre-chemical (ground state conformations) and the chemical (transition state) components of the process for the substrate both in water and in the enzyme. Although the model is of general applicability, the chorismate to prephenate reaction catalyzed by chorismate mutase was chosen for illustrative purposes. The resulting kinetic equations show that the catalytic power of enzymes, quantified as the k(cat)/k(uncat) ratio, is the product of two terms: one including the equilibrium constants for the substrate conformational states and the other including the rate constants for the uncatalyzed and catalyzed chemical reactions. The model shows that these components are not mutually exclusive and can be simultaneously present in an enzymic system, being their relative contribution a property of the enzyme. The developed mathematical expressions reveal that the conformational and reaction components of the process perform differently for the translation of molecular efficiency (changes in energy levels) into observed enzymic efficiency (changes in k(cat)), being, in general, more productive the component involving the transition state.

Current models of receptor activation are based on either of two basic mechanisms: agonist induction or conformational selection. The importance of one pathway relative to the other is controversial. In this article, the impossibility of distinguishing between the two mechanisms under a thermodynamic approach is shown. The effect of receptor mutation on the constants governing ligand-receptor equilibria is discussed. The two-state model of agonism both in its original formulation (one cycle) and including multiple active states (multiple cycles) is used. Pharmacological equations for the double (two cycles) two-state model are derived. The simulations performed suggest that the double two-state model of agonism can be a useful model for assessing quantitatively the changes in pharmacological activity following receptor mutation.

The previously defined sites in the histamine H2 receptor model [Mol. Pharmacol. 40:980-987 (1991)] were used to elucidate the pharmacological mechanism of action of compounds that act as antagonists at the receptor. In this model, a formate anion is used both as the negative site at which the histamine cation is anchored to the receptor and as a proton acceptor site. An ammonium cation is used as a proton donor site. The proposed model of recognition of cimetidine, tiotidine, and ranitidine suggests that the monocationic form of the antagonists is the most favorable species to bind the receptor. Moreover, the mode of recognition follows the same trends obtained for compounds that act as agonists; the protonated site of the molecule, i.e., imidazolium in cimetidine, guanidinium in tiotidine, or substituted ammonium in ranitidine, anchors at the negative site of the receptor, whereas the nonbasic part, i.e., cyanoguanidine in cimetidine and tiotidine and nitrodiaminoethene in ranitidine, is located between the proton donor and acceptor sites. An energetic analysis of the interaction between the antagonists and the receptor model, including the energies of ligand desolvation, shows that histamine cannot compete effectively with cimetidine, tiotidine, or ranitidine for binding to the H2 receptor. The predicted order of antagonist potencies, based on differences of formation enthalpies (delta delta H1), reproduces qualitatively the experimental rank order.