Avidity and positive allosteric modulation/cooperativity act hand in hand to increase the residence time of bivalent receptor ligands

Fundamental and Clinical Pharmacology

Volumn 28, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 530-543

  Vauquelin, Georges ^a   Bricca, Giampiero ^b   Van Liefde, Isabelle ^a  

^a VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITÉ LYON 1   (France)

Author keywords

Avidity; Binding kinetics; Bitopic; Bivalent; Cooperativity; Differential equations; Residence time; Simulations

Indexed keywords

ALLOSTERISM; ARTICLE; BINDING AFFINITY; INCUBATION TIME; INTERNALIZATION; LIGAND BINDING; PHARMACOPHORE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEPTOR DOWN REGULATION; SIMULATION; HUMAN; KINETICS; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS;

LIGAND; PROTEIN BINDING;

ALLOSTERIC REGULATION; HUMANS; KINETICS; LIGANDS; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATION; PROTEIN BINDING;

EID: 84927574644     PISSN: 07673981     EISSN: 14728206     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/fcp.12052     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Swinney D.C. Biochemical mechanisms of drug action: what does it take for success? Nat. Rev. Drug. Discov. (2004) 3 801-808.
2. Swinney D.C. Biochemical mechanisms of new molecular entities (NMEs) approved by United States FDA during 2001-2004: mechanisms leading to optimal efficacy and safety. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. (2006) 6 461-478.
3. Swinney D.C. Can binding kinetics translate to a clinically differentiated drug? From theory to practice. Lett. Drug. Des. Disc. (2006) 3 569-574.
4. Swinney D.C. The role of binding kinetics in therapeutically useful drug action. Curr. Opin. Drug. Discovery. Dev. (2009) 12 31-39.
5. Copeland R.A., Pompliano D.L., Meek T.D. Drug-target residence time and its implications for lead optimization. Nat. Rev. Drug. Discov. (2006) 5 730-739.
6. Tummino P.J., Copeland R.A. Residence time of receptor-ligand complexes and its effect on biological function. Biochemistry (2008) 47 5481-5492.
7. Copeland R.A. The dynamics of drug-target interactions: drug-target residence time and its impact on efficacy and safety Expert. Opin. Drug. Discov. (2010) 5 305-510.
8. Zhang R., Monsma F. The importance of drug-target residence time. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel. (2009) 12 488-496.
9. Kjeldsen S.E., Stålhammar J., Hasvold P., Bodegard J., Olsson U., Russell D. Effects of losartan vs candesartan in reducing cardiovascular events in the primary treatment of hypertension. J. Hum. Hypertens. (2010) 24 263-273.
10. Eklind-Cervenka M., Benson L., Dahlström U., Edner M., Rosenqvist M., Lund L.H. Association of candesartan vs losartan with all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure. Amer. Med. Assoc. (2011) 305 175-182.
11. Rudnick S.I., Adams G.P. Affinity and avidity an antibody-based tumor targeting. Cancer Biotherap. Radiopharm. (2009) 24 155-161.
12. Holliger P., Hudson P.J. Engineered antibody fragments and the rise of single domains. Nat. Biotechnol. (2005) 23 1126-1136.
13. Valant C., Lane J.R., Sexton P.M., Christopoulos A. The best of two worlds? Bitopic orthosteric/allosteric ligands of G protein-coupled receptors. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. (2012) 52 153-178.
14. Mammen M., Choi S.-K., Whitesides G.M. Polyvalent interactions in biological systems: implications for design and use of multivalent ligands and inhibitors. Angewandte Chemie Int. Ed. (1998) 37 2754-2794.
15. Vauquelin G., Charlton S. Exploring avidity, understanding the potential gains in functional affinity and target residence time of bivalent and heterobivalent ligands. Br. J. Pharmacol. (2013) 168 1771-1785.
16. Kramer R.H., Karpen J.W. Spanning binding sites on allosteric proteins with polymer-linked ligand dimers. Nature (1998) 395 710-713.
17. Kaufman E.N., Jain R.K. Effect of bivalent interaction upon apparent antibody affinity, Experimental confirmation of a theory using fluorescence photobleaching and implications for antibody binding assays. Cancer Res. (1992) 52 4157-4167.
18. Plückthun A., Pack P. New protein engineering approaches to multivalent and bispecific antibody fragments. Immunotechnology (1997) 3 83-105.
19. Vauquelin G., Van Liefde I. Radioligand dissociation measurements, potential interference of rebinding and allosteric mechanisms and physiological relevance of the biological model systems. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. (2012) 7 583-595.
20. Vauquelin G. Simplified models for heterobivalent ligand binding: when are they applicable and which are the factors that affect their target residence time. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Arch. Pharmacol. (2013) 386 949-962.
21. Kamal M., Jockers R. Bitopic ligands, all-in-one orthosteric and allosteric. F1000 Biol. Rep. (2009) 1 77.
22. Lane J.R., Sexton P.M., Christopoulos A. Bridging the gap: bitopic ligands of G-protein-coupled receptors. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. (2013) 34 59-65.
23. Stockton J.M., Birdsall N.J., Burgen A.S., Hulme E.C. Modification of the binding properties of muscarinic receptors by gallamine. Mol. Pharmacol. (1983) 23 551-557.
24. Ehlert F.J. Estimation of the affinities of allosteric ligands using radioligand binding and pharmacological null methods. Mol. Pharmacol. (1988) 33 187-194.
25. Christopoulos A., Kenakin T. G protein-coupled receptor allosterism and complexing. Pharmacol. Rev. (2002) 54 323-374.
26. Christopoulos A. Allosteric binding sites on cell-surface receptors, novel targets for drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. (2002) 1 198-210.
27. Lu H., Tonge P.J. Drug-target residence time: critical information for lead optimization. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. (2010) 14 467-474.
28. Mohr K., Tränkle C., Kostenis E., Barocelli E., De Amici M., Holzgrabe U. Rational design of dualsteric GPCR ligands: quests and promise. Br. J. Pharmacol. (2010) 159 997-1008.
29. 1 receptors and their non-peptide antagonists. Biochem. Pharmacol. (2001) 61 277-284.
30. Vauquelin G. Determination of drug-receptor residence times by radioligand binding and functional assays, experimental strategies and physiological relevance. Med. Chem. Commun. (2012) 3 645-651.
31. Strickland S., Palmer G., 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 4048-4052.
32. Núñez S., Venhorst J., Kruse C.G. Target-drug interactions: first principles and their application to drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today (2012) 17 10-22.
33. Perry D.C., Mullis K.B., Øie S., Sadée W. Opiate antagonist receptor binding in vivo: evidence for a new receptor binding model. Brain Res. (1980) 199 49-61.
34. 3H]-diprenorphine receptor binding in vivo and in vitro. Eur. J. Pharmacol. (1982) 81 431-440.
35. Coombs D., Goldstein B. Effects of geometry of the immunological synapse on the delivery of effector molecules. Biophys. J. (2004) 87 2215-2220.
36. Vauquelin G. Rebinding or why drugs may act longer in vivo than expected from their in vitro target residence time. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. (2010) 5 927-941.
37. Vauquelin G., Charlton S. Long-lasting target binding and rebinding as mechanisms to prolong in vivo drug action. Br. J. Pharmacol. (2010) 161 488-508.
38. Vauquelin G., Szczuka A. Kinetic versus allosteric mechanisms to explain insurmountable antagonism and delayed ligand dissociation. Neurochem. Int. (2007) 51 254-260.
39. Daum S., Lücke C., Wildeman D., Schiener-Fischrer C. On the benefit of bivalency in peptide ligand/Pin1 interactions. J. Mol. Biol. (2007) 374 147-161.
40. Steinfeld T., Mammen M., Smith J.A., Wilson R.D., Jasper J.R. A novel multivalent ligand that bridges the allosteric and orthosteric binding sites of the M2 muscarinic receptor. Mol. Pharmacol. (2007) 72 291-302.
41. Charlton S., Vauquelin G. Elusive equilibrium: the challenge of interpreting receptor pharmacology using calcium assays. Br. J. Pharmacol. (2010) 161 1250-1265.
42. Vauquelin G., Bostoen S., Vanderheyden P., Seeman P. Clozapine, atypical antipsychotics and the benefits of fast-off D2 dopamine receptor antagonism. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Arch. Pharmacol. (2012) 385 337-372.
43. Dror R.O., Pana A.C., Arlowa D.H. et al. Pathway and mechanism of drug binding to G-protein-coupled receptors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA (2011) 108 13118-13123.
44. Hoare S.R.J. Allosteric modulators of Class B G-protein-coupled Receptors. Current Neuropharmacol. (2007) 5 168-179.
45. Lefkowitz R.J., Pierce K.L., Luttrell L.M. Dancing with different partners, protein kinase a phosphorylation of seven membrane- spanning receptors regulates their G protein-coupling specificity. Mol. Pharmacol. (2002) 62 971-974.
46. Luttrell L.M., Lefkowitz R.J. The role of beta-arrestins in the termination and transduction of G-protein-coupled receptor signals. J. Cell Sci. (2002) 115 455-465.