Biophysical Limits of Protein-Ligand Binding

In classic work, Kuntz et al. (Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 1999, 96, 9997-10002) introduced the concept of ligand efficiency. Though that study focused primarily on drug-like molecules, it also showed that metal binding led to the greatest ligand efficiencies. Here, the physical limits of binding are examined across the wide variety of small molecules in the Binding MOAD database. The complexes with the greatest ligand efficiencies share the trait of being small, charged ligands bound in highly charged, well buried binding sites. The limit of ligand efficiency is -1.75 kcal/mol·atom for the protein-ligand complexes within Binding MOAD, and 95% of the set have efficiencies below a "soft limit" of -0.83 kcal/mol·atom. On the basis of buried molecular surface area, the hard limit of ligand efficiency is -117 cal/mol·Å(2), which is in surprising agreement with the limit of macromolecule-protein binding. Close examination of the most efficient systems reveals their incredibly high efficiency is dictated by tight contacts between the charged groups of the ligand and the pocket. In fact, a misfit of 0.24 Å in the average contacts inherently decreases the maximum possible efficiency by at least 0.1 kcal/mol·atom.

[1]  M. Holloway,et al.  Thermodynamics of ligand binding and efficiency. , 2011, ACS medicinal chemistry letters.

[2]  Daniel Blasi,et al.  Ligand Efficiency Indices (LEIs): More than a Simple Efficiency Yardstick , 2011, Molecular informatics.

[3]  Uri Alon,et al.  Proteome Half-Life Dynamics in Living Human Cells , 2011, Science.

[4]  John P. Overington,et al.  Ligand efficiency indices for an effective mapping of chemico-biological space: the concept of an atlas-like representation. , 2010, Drug discovery today.

[5]  J. Willem M. Nissink,et al.  Simple Size-Independent Measure of Ligand Efficiency , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[6]  György M. Keserü,et al.  The influence of lead discovery strategies on the properties of drug candidates , 2009, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[7]  Andrew G. Leach,et al.  Beyond picomolar affinities: quantitative aspects of noncovalent and covalent binding of drugs to proteins. , 2009, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[8]  Mark L. Benson,et al.  Differences between high- and low-affinity complexes of enzymes and nonenzymes. , 2008, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.

[9]  Marcel L Verdonk,et al.  Group Efficiency: A Guideline for Hits‐to‐Leads Chemistry , 2008, ChemMedChem.

[10]  J. Andersen,et al.  Structure, Function, and Evolution of Biogenic Amine-binding Proteins in Soft Ticks* , 2008, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[11]  S. Bembenek,et al.  Ligand binding efficiency: trends, physical basis, and implications. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[12]  S. M. Sullivan,et al.  Differential inhibition of cytosolic PEPCK by substrate analogues. Kinetic and structural characterization of inhibitor recognition. , 2008, Biochemistry.

[13]  K. Dill,et al.  Predicting absolute ligand binding free energies to a simple model site. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[14]  Brett A Tounge,et al.  The role of molecular size in ligand efficiency. , 2007, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[15]  L. Amzel,et al.  Compensating Enthalpic and Entropic Changes Hinder Binding Affinity Optimization , 2007, Chemical biology & drug design.

[16]  K N Houk,et al.  The origins of femtomolar protein-ligand binding: hydrogen-bond cooperativity and desolvation energetics in the biotin-(strept)avidin binding site. , 2007, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[17]  O. Laitinen,et al.  Structure and characterization of a novel chicken biotin-binding protein A (BBP-A) , 2007, BMC Structural Biology.

[18]  J. Corzo Time, the forgotten dimension of ligand binding teaching , 2006, Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

[19]  Shaomeng Wang,et al.  M-score: a knowledge-based potential scoring function accounting for protein atom mobility. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[20]  E. O’Shea,et al.  Quantification of protein half-lives in the budding yeast proteome , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  D. Rau,et al.  Preferential hydration of DNA: the magnitude and distance dependence of alcohol and polyol interactions. , 2006, Biophysical journal.

[22]  Heather A Carlson,et al.  Exploring protein-ligand recognition with Binding MOAD. , 2006, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[23]  Matthew P Jacobson,et al.  Surfaces affect ion pairing. , 2005, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[24]  Michael G. Lerner,et al.  Binding MOAD (Mother Of All Databases) , 2005, Proteins.

[25]  Eric Gouaux,et al.  Mechanism of Partial Agonist Action at the NR1 Subunit of NMDA Receptors , 2005, Neuron.

[26]  Richard S. P. Horler,et al.  An ATP‐binding cassette‐type cysteine transporter in Campylobacter jejuni inferred from the structure of an extracytoplasmic solute receptor protein , 2005, Molecular microbiology.

[27]  J. T. Metz,et al.  Ligand efficiency indices as guideposts for drug discovery. , 2005, Drug discovery today.

[28]  K N Houk,et al.  Why enzymes are proficient catalysts: beyond the Pauling paradigm. , 2005, Accounts of chemical research.

[29]  Shi-Jie Chen,et al.  Electrostatic correlations and fluctuations for ion binding to a finite length polyelectrolyte. , 2005, The Journal of chemical physics.

[30]  John B. O. Mitchell,et al.  Predicting protein-ligand binding affinities: a low scoring game? , 2004, Organic & biomolecular chemistry.

[31]  M. Congreve,et al.  Fragment-based lead discovery , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[32]  A. Hopkins,et al.  Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. , 2004, Drug discovery today.

[33]  Matthias Keil,et al.  Pattern recognition strategies for molecular surfaces: III. Binding site prediction with a neural network , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[34]  Andrew G. Leach,et al.  Binding affinities of host-guest, protein-ligand, and protein-transition-state complexes. , 2003, Angewandte Chemie.

[35]  Eric Gouaux,et al.  Mechanisms of activation, inhibition and specificity: crystal structures of the NMDA receptor NR1 ligand‐binding core , 2003, The EMBO journal.

[36]  Irwin D Kuntz,et al.  Stability of macromolecular complexes , 2002, Proteins.

[37]  G. Klebe,et al.  Approaches to the description and prediction of the binding affinity of small-molecule ligands to macromolecular receptors. , 2002, Angewandte Chemie.

[38]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  Close‐Range Electrostatic Interactions in Proteins , 2002, Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology.

[39]  Zhengshuang Shi,et al.  Cooperative helix stabilization by complex Arg–Glu salt bridges , 2001, Proteins.

[40]  Bruce Tidor,et al.  Optimization of binding electrostatics: Charge complementarity in the barnase‐barstar protein complex , 2001, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[41]  T. Poulos,et al.  Mapping the active site polarity in structures of endothelial nitric oxide synthase heme domain complexed with isothioureas. , 2000, Journal of inorganic biochemistry.

[42]  K. Wilson,et al.  The complex of Bacillus pasteurii urease with acetohydroxamate anion from X-ray data at 1.55 Å resolution , 2000, JBIC Journal of Biological Inorganic Chemistry.

[43]  K N Houk,et al.  Evolution of shape complementarity and catalytic efficiency from a primordial antibody template. , 1999, Science.

[44]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Salt bridge stability in monomeric proteins. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[45]  I. Kuntz,et al.  The maximal affinity of ligands. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[46]  D I Stuart,et al.  Tick histamine-binding proteins: isolation, cloning, and three-dimensional structure. , 1999, Molecular cell.

[47]  P. Weber,et al.  Structural characterization of nitric oxide synthase isoforms reveals striking active-site conservation , 1999, Nature Structural Biology.

[48]  G. Madsen,et al.  On the electronic nature of low-barrier hydrogen bonds in enzymatic reactions. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[49]  Bruce Tidor,et al.  Optimizing electrostatic affinity in ligand-receptor binding: Theory, computation, and ligand properties , 1998 .

[50]  K Morikawa,et al.  Crystal Structure and Mutational Analysis of theEscherichia coli Putrescine Receptor , 1998, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[51]  B Tidor,et al.  Computation of electrostatic complements to proteins: A case of charge stabilized binding , 1998, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[52]  B. Musafia,et al.  Complex salt bridges in proteins: statistical analysis of structure and function. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[53]  S. Kim,et al.  Structural basis for multiple ligand specificity of the periplasmic lysine-, arginine-, ornithine-binding protein. , 1995, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[54]  S. Mowbray,et al.  Probing protein-protein interactions. The ribose-binding protein in bacterial transport and chemotaxis. , 1995, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[55]  R. Harrison,et al.  Prediction of new serine proteinase inhibitors , 1994, Nature Structural Biology.

[56]  W. Cleland,et al.  Low-barrier hydrogen bonds and enzymic catalysis. , 1994, Science.

[57]  E. Zhang,et al.  Catalytic metal ion binding in enolase: the crystal structure of an enolase-Mn2+-phosphonoacetohydroxamate complex at 2.4-A resolution. , 1994, Biochemistry.

[58]  B. Tidor,et al.  Do salt bridges stabilize proteins? A continuum electrostatic analysis , 1994, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[59]  P A Kollman,et al.  What determines the strength of noncovalent association of ligands to proteins in aqueous solution? , 1993, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[60]  J. Hynes,et al.  Solvation free energies and solvent force constants , 1992 .

[61]  V. Schramm,et al.  Mammalian and avian liver phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase. Alternate substrates and inhibition by analogues of oxaloacetate. , 1990, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[62]  A. Haaland Covalent versus Dative Bonds to Main Group Metals, a Useful Distinction , 1989 .

[63]  W. L. Jorgensen,et al.  The OPLS [optimized potentials for liquid simulations] potential functions for proteins, energy minimizations for crystals of cyclic peptides and crambin. , 1988, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[64]  S. Rogers,et al.  Amino acid sequences common to rapidly degraded proteins: the PEST hypothesis. , 1986, Science.

[65]  C. Chothia,et al.  Hydrophobic bonding and accessible surface area in proteins , 1974, Nature.

[66]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[67]  K. Dill,et al.  Partitioning of nonpolar solutes into bilayers and amorphous n-alkanes , 1990 .