The influence of rigid or flexible linkage between two ligands on the effective affinity and avidity for reversible interactions with bivalent receptors

Journal of Molecular Recognition

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 253-262

  Bobrovnik, S A ^a  

^a PALLADIN INSTITUTE OF BIOCHEMISTRY   (Ukraine)

Author keywords

Binding cooperativity; Bivalent avidity; Ligand receptor interaction; Local concentration; Monovalent affinity

Indexed keywords

CELL SURFACE RECEPTOR; LIGAND; PROTEIN SUBUNIT; RECOMBINANT PROTEIN;

ARTICLE; BINDING SITE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CHEMISTRY; ENZYME SPECIFICITY; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION; METABOLISM; PHYSIOLOGY; PROTEIN BINDING; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; THEORETICAL MODEL;

BINDING SITES; LIGANDS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MUTAGENESIS, INSERTIONAL; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN SUBUNITS; RECEPTORS, CELL SURFACE; RECOMBINANT PROTEINS; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; SUBSTRATE SPECIFICITY;

EID: 34948842517     PISSN: 09523499     EISSN: 10991352     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jmr.836     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Berdis A, Soumillion P, Benkovic S. 1996. The carboxyl terminus of the bacteriophage T4 DNA polymerase is required for holoenzyme complex formation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93: 12822-12827.
2. Bobrovnik SA, Stevens FJ. 2004. Evaluation of intramolecular interaction between complementary domains, connected with a flexible chain. Ukr. Zh. Biokhim. 76(6): 127-129.
3. Crothers DM, Metzger H. 1972. The influence of polyvalency on the binding properties of antibodies. Immunochemistry 9: 341-357.
4. Eldridge AM, Kang H-S, Johnson E, Gunsalus R, Dahlquist FW. 2002. Effect of phosphorylation on the interdomain interaction of the response regulator, NarL. Biochemistry 41: 15173-15180.
5. Gobush W, Yamawaka H, Stockmayer WH, Magee WS. 1972. Statistical mechanics of wormlike chains. I. Asymptotic behavior. J. Chem. Phys. 57: 2839-2843.
6. Hornick CL, Karush F. 1969. The interaction of hapten-coupled bacteriophage phi-X-174 with antihapten antibody. Israel J. Med. Sci. 5: 163-170.
7. Hornick CL, Karush F. 1972. Antibody affinity. 3. The role of multivalance. Immunochemistry 9: 325-340.
8. Jencks WP. 1981. On the attribution and additivity of binding energies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 78: 4046-4050.
9. Karush F. 1978. The affinity of antibody: range, variability, the role of multivalence. In Immunoglobulins, Litman GW, Good RA (eds). Plenum Press: New York; 85-116.
10. Kaufman EN, Jain RK. 1992. Effect of bivalent interaction upon apparent antibody affinity: experimental confirmation of theory using fluorescence photobleaching and implications for antibody binding assays. Cancer Res. 52: 4157-4167.
11. Kim J-S, Pabo CO. 1998. Getting a handhold on DNA: design of poly-zinc finger proteins with femtomolar dissociation constants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95: 2812-2817.
12. Moore M, Choo Y, Klug A. 2001. Design of polyzinc finger peptides with structured linkers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 1432-1436.
13. Nygren H, Czerkinsky C, Stenberg M. 1985. Dissociation of antibodies bound to surface-immobilized antigen. J. Immunol. Methods 85: 87-95.
14. Pabo CO, Peisach E, Grant RA. 2001. Design and selection of novel Cys2His2 zinc finger proteins. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 70: 313-340.
15. Pisarchick ML, Thompson NL. 1990. Binding of a monoclonal antibody and its Fab fragment to supported phospholipid monolayers measured by total internal reflection fluorescence microscopy. Biophys. J. 58: 1235-1249.
16. Robinson CR, Sauer RT. 1996. Covalent attachment of Arc repressor subunits by a peptide linker enhances affinity for operator DNA. Biochemistry 35: 109-116.
17. Sanders G, Kassavetis G, Geiduschek E. 1997. Dual targets of a transcriptional activator that tracks on DNA. EMBO J. 16: 3124-3132.
18. Sano T, Ohyama K, Yamano Y, Nakagomi Y, Nakazawa S, Kikyo M, Shirai H, Blank JS, Exton JH, Inagami T. 1997. A domain for G protein coupling in carboxyl-terminal tail of rat angiotensin II receptor type 1A. J. Biol. Chem. 272: 23631-23636.
19. Schleif R, Wolberger C. 2004. Arm-domain interactions can provide high binding cooperativity. Protein Sci. 13: 2829-2831.
20. Shi Y. 2002. A conserved tetrapeptide motif: potentiating apoptosis through IAP-binding. Cell Death Differ. 9: 93-95.
21. Timmes A, Rodgers M, Schleif R. 2004. Biochemical and physiological properties of the DNA binding domain of AraC protein. J. Mol. Biol. 340: 731-738.
22. Tobita T, Oda M, Azuma T. 2004. Segmental flexibility and avidity of IgM in the interaction of polyvalent antigens. Molec. Immunol. 40: 803-811.
23. Waite BA, Chang EL. 1988. Antibody multivalency effects in the direct binding model for vesicle immunolysis assays. J. Immunol. Methods 115: 227-238.
24. Wilhelm J, Frey E. 1996. Radial distribution function of semiflexible polymers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77: 2581-2584.
25. Wolfe A, Ramm EI, Pabo CO. 2000. Combining structure-based design with phage display to create new Cys(2)His(2) zinc finger dimers. Structure 8: 739-750.
26. Yamawaka H, Stockmayer WH. 1972. Statistical mechanics of wormlike chains. II. Excluded volume effects. J. Chem. Phys. 57: 2843-2854.
27. Zhou H-X. 2001a. The affinity-enhancing roles of flexible linkers in two-domain DNA-binding proteins. Biochemistry 40: 15069-15073.
28. Zhou H-X. 2001b. Single-chain versus dimeric protein folding: thermodynamic and kinetic consequences of covalent linkage. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 123: 6730-6731.
29. Zhou H-X. 2003. Quantitative account of the enhanced affinity of two linked scFvs specific for different epitopes on the same antigen. J. Mol. Biol. 329: 1-8.