Cargando…

Comparison of Entropic Contributions to Binding in a “Hydrophilic” versus “Hydrophobic” Ligand−Protein Interaction

[Image: see text] In the present study we characterize the thermodynamics of binding of histamine to recombinant histamine-binding protein (rRaHBP2), a member of the lipocalin family isolated from the brown-ear tick Rhipicephalus appendiculatus. The binding pocket of this protein contains a number o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Syme, Neil R., Dennis, Caitriona, Bronowska, Agnieszka, Paesen, Guido C., Homans, Steve W.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Chemical Society 2010
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2890244/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20524663
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja101362u
_version_ 1782182768121217024
author Syme, Neil R.
Dennis, Caitriona
Bronowska, Agnieszka
Paesen, Guido C.
Homans, Steve W.
author_facet Syme, Neil R.
Dennis, Caitriona
Bronowska, Agnieszka
Paesen, Guido C.
Homans, Steve W.
author_sort Syme, Neil R.
collection PubMed
description [Image: see text] In the present study we characterize the thermodynamics of binding of histamine to recombinant histamine-binding protein (rRaHBP2), a member of the lipocalin family isolated from the brown-ear tick Rhipicephalus appendiculatus. The binding pocket of this protein contains a number of charged residues, consistent with histamine binding, and is thus a typical example of a “hydrophilic” binder. In contrast, a second member of the lipocalin family, the recombinant major urinary protein (rMUP), binds small hydrophobic ligands, with a similar overall entropy of binding in comparison with rRaHBP2. Having extensively studied ligand binding thermodynamics for rMUP previously, the data we obtained in the present study for HBP enables a comparison of the driving forces for binding between these classically distinct binding processes in terms of entropic contributions from ligand, protein, and solvent. In the case of rRaHBP2, we find favorable entropic contributions to binding from desolvation of the ligand; however, the overall entropy of binding is unfavorable due to a dominant unfavorable contribution arising from the loss of ligand degrees of freedom, together with the sequestration of solvent water molecules into the binding pocket in the complex. This contrasts with binding in rMUP where desolvation of the protein binding pocket makes a minor contribution to the overall entropy of binding given that the pocket is substantially desolvated prior to binding.
format Text
id pubmed-2890244
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher American Chemical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28902442010-06-23 Comparison of Entropic Contributions to Binding in a “Hydrophilic” versus “Hydrophobic” Ligand−Protein Interaction Syme, Neil R. Dennis, Caitriona Bronowska, Agnieszka Paesen, Guido C. Homans, Steve W. J Am Chem Soc [Image: see text] In the present study we characterize the thermodynamics of binding of histamine to recombinant histamine-binding protein (rRaHBP2), a member of the lipocalin family isolated from the brown-ear tick Rhipicephalus appendiculatus. The binding pocket of this protein contains a number of charged residues, consistent with histamine binding, and is thus a typical example of a “hydrophilic” binder. In contrast, a second member of the lipocalin family, the recombinant major urinary protein (rMUP), binds small hydrophobic ligands, with a similar overall entropy of binding in comparison with rRaHBP2. Having extensively studied ligand binding thermodynamics for rMUP previously, the data we obtained in the present study for HBP enables a comparison of the driving forces for binding between these classically distinct binding processes in terms of entropic contributions from ligand, protein, and solvent. In the case of rRaHBP2, we find favorable entropic contributions to binding from desolvation of the ligand; however, the overall entropy of binding is unfavorable due to a dominant unfavorable contribution arising from the loss of ligand degrees of freedom, together with the sequestration of solvent water molecules into the binding pocket in the complex. This contrasts with binding in rMUP where desolvation of the protein binding pocket makes a minor contribution to the overall entropy of binding given that the pocket is substantially desolvated prior to binding. American Chemical Society 2010-06-04 2010-06-30 /pmc/articles/PMC2890244/ /pubmed/20524663 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja101362u Text en Copyright © 2010 American Chemical Society http://pubs.acs.org This is an open-access article distributed under the ACS AuthorChoice Terms & Conditions. Any use of this article, must conform to the terms of that license which are available at http://pubs.acs.org.
spellingShingle Syme, Neil R.
Dennis, Caitriona
Bronowska, Agnieszka
Paesen, Guido C.
Homans, Steve W.
Comparison of Entropic Contributions to Binding in a “Hydrophilic” versus “Hydrophobic” Ligand−Protein Interaction
title Comparison of Entropic Contributions to Binding in a “Hydrophilic” versus “Hydrophobic” Ligand−Protein Interaction
title_full Comparison of Entropic Contributions to Binding in a “Hydrophilic” versus “Hydrophobic” Ligand−Protein Interaction
title_fullStr Comparison of Entropic Contributions to Binding in a “Hydrophilic” versus “Hydrophobic” Ligand−Protein Interaction
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Entropic Contributions to Binding in a “Hydrophilic” versus “Hydrophobic” Ligand−Protein Interaction
title_short Comparison of Entropic Contributions to Binding in a “Hydrophilic” versus “Hydrophobic” Ligand−Protein Interaction
title_sort comparison of entropic contributions to binding in a “hydrophilic” versus “hydrophobic” ligand−protein interaction
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2890244/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20524663
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja101362u
work_keys_str_mv AT symeneilr comparisonofentropiccontributionstobindinginahydrophilicversushydrophobicligandproteininteraction
AT denniscaitriona comparisonofentropiccontributionstobindinginahydrophilicversushydrophobicligandproteininteraction
AT bronowskaagnieszka comparisonofentropiccontributionstobindinginahydrophilicversushydrophobicligandproteininteraction
AT paesenguidoc comparisonofentropiccontributionstobindinginahydrophilicversushydrophobicligandproteininteraction
AT homansstevew comparisonofentropiccontributionstobindinginahydrophilicversushydrophobicligandproteininteraction