Cohen's Conjecture, Howard's Hypothesis, and Ptashne's Ptruth: an exploration of the relationship between affinity and specificity.

Both affinity and specificity for ligands directly influence the functions of biological macromolecules. Some investigators assume that there is a consistent relationship between the affinity of a receptor molecule for its cognate ligand(s) and the specificity of that same receptor (affinity for cognate versus non-cognate ligands). However, analysis of the range of physical factors that account for changes in affinity, in any particular direction and to any particular degree, of a receptor for a cognate ligand suggests strongly that such factors can have disparate effects on the affinities of the receptor for different non-cognate ligands. Therefore, there can be no simple relationship between affinity and specificity as defined by relative binding of the receptor to cognate and non-cognate ligands.

[1]  F. Karush.  The Affinity of Antibody: Range, Variability, and the Role of Multivalence , 1978 .

[2]  R. Bruccoleri,et al.  Contribution of a single heavy chain residue to specificity of an anti‐digoxin monoclonal antibody , 1994, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[3]  M. Ptashne,et al.  Genes and Signals , 2001 .

[4]  L Jen-Jacobson,et al.  Protein-DNA recognition complexes: conservation of structure and binding energy in the transition state. , 1997, Biopolymers.

[5]  S. Melcher,et al.  Thermodynamics of the interactions of lac repressor with variants of the symmetric lac operator: effects of converting a consensus site to a non-specific site. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  N. Greenspan,et al.  Dimensions of antigen recognition and levels of immunological specificity. , 2001, Advances in cancer research.

[7]  L. Gold,et al.  Let's get specific: the relationship between specificity and affinity. , 1995, Chemistry & biology.

[8]  I. Cohen.  Tending Adam's Garden: Evolving the Cognitive Immune Self , 2004 .

[9]  N. Greenspan,et al.  Cooperative binding of two antibodies to independent antigens by an Fc‐dependent mechanism , 1989, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[10]  R. Batey,et al.  Comparison of operator-specific and nonspecific DNA binding of the lambda cI repressor: [KCl] and pH effects. , 1991, Biochemistry.

[11]  A. Kramer,et al.  Molecular Basis for the Binding Promiscuity of an Anti-p24 (HIV-1) Monoclonal Antibody , 1997, Cell.

[12]  Rahul Raman,et al.  Hemagglutinin Receptor Binding Avidity Drives Influenza A Virus Antigenic Drift , 2009, Science.

[13]  R. Bruccoleri,et al.  Altered hapten recognition by two anti-digoxin hybridoma variants due to variable region point mutations. , 1991, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[14]  Peter G. Schultz,et al.  The Immunological Evolution of Catalysis , 1996, Science.

[15]  R. Bruccoleri,et al.  Heavy chain position 50 is a determinant of affinity and specificity for the anti-digoxin antibody 26-10. , 1993, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[16]  A. Sarai,et al.  Analysis of the sequence-specific interactions between Cro repressor and operator DNA by systematic base substitution experiments. , 1989, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  J. Szostak,et al.  Aptamers selected for higher-affinity binding are not more specific for the target ligand. , 2006, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[18]  D Szwajkajzer,et al.  Molecular and biological constraints on ligand-binding affinity and specificity. , 1997, Biopolymers.