Multiple diverse ligands binding at a single protein site: A matter of pre‐existing populations

Abstract

Here, we comment on the steadily increasing body of data showing that proteins with specificity actually bind ligands of diverse shapes, sizes, and composition. Such a phenomenon is not surprising when one considers that binding is a dynamic process with populations in equilibrium and that the shape of the binding site is strongly influenced by the molecular partner. It derives implicitly from the concept of populations. All proteins, specific and nonspecific, exist in ensembles of substates. If the library of ligands in solution is large enough, favorably matching ligands with altered shapes and sizes can be expected to bind, with a redistribution of the protein populations. Point mutations at spatially distant sites may exert large conformational rearrangements and hinge effects, consistent with mutations away from the binding site leading to population shifts and (cross-)drug resistance. A similar effect is observed in protein superfamilies, in which different sequences with similar topologies display similar large-scale dynamic motions. The hinges are frequently at analogous sites, yet with different substrate specificity. Similar topologies yield similar conformational isomers, although with different distributions of population times, owing to the change in the conditions, that is, the change in the sequences. In turn, different distributions relate to binding of different sizes and shapes. Hence, the binding site shape and size are defined by the ligand. They are not independent entities of fixed proportions and cannot be analyzed independently of the binding partner. Such a proposition derives from viewing proteins as dynamic distributions, presenting to the incoming ligands a range of binding site shapes. It illustrates how presumably specific binding molecules can bind multiple ligands. In terms of drug design, the ability of a single receptor to recognize many dissimilar ligands shows the need to consider more diverse molecules. It provides a rationale for higher affinity inhibitors that are not derived from substrates at their transition states and indicates flexible docking schemes. Article and publication are at

Small-Molecule Inhibitors of IL-2/IL-2R: Lessons Learned and Applied

“…Thus, the structure of IL-2 bound to Ro26-4550 indicates that small molecules can bind to protein-protein interface at the hotspot, using regions of the hotspot that are inherently adaptive. This theme had recently been appreciated for Fc domains, which were shown to bind several protein and peptide ligands using various conformations of the same hotspot residues (DeLano et al 2000;Ma et al 2002).…”

Conformational selection and induced fit mechanism underlie specificity in noncovalent interactions with ubiquitin

“…However, several different systems have recently been shown to follow an alternative paradigm whose central element is the idea of conformational selection (4). Within this paradigm, the conformational change in binding is thought to originate primarily from the conformational diversity of the unbound state (5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15). Simply put, the unbound protein explores the energy landscape, spending most of the time in the lowest energy conformations, but also occupying higher-energy ones, some of which are structurally similar to the bound conformations.…”

“…Simply put, the unbound protein explores the energy landscape, spending most of the time in the lowest energy conformations, but also occupying higher-energy ones, some of which are structurally similar to the bound conformations. In the course of binding, because of favorable interactions with the ligand, these conformers get preferentially selected and the population of protein microstates shifts in the direction of bound conformations (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15). In a way, induced fit and conformational selection are two extremes of possible mechanisms underlying protein interactions (16): in the former, optimal binding is achieved by specific structural change, whereas in the latter it is brought about through selection from the already present unbound ensemble.…”

High-pressure EPR reveals conformational equilibria and volumetric properties of spin-labeled proteins

“…One mechanistic interpretation of this event is provided by a "preequilibrium" model, which posits that all possible conformations of a protein exist at equilibrium with populations proportional to their relative energies (7). The exchange ("hopping") event between different conformers is characterized by lifetimes in the microsecond-millisecond range (1,2,8).…”