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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |