Hubbry Logo
Allosteric regulationAllosteric regulationMain
Open search
Allosteric regulation
Community hub
Allosteric regulation
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Allosteric regulation
Allosteric regulation
Allosteric regulation
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Allosteric regulation of an enzyme

In the fields of biochemistry and pharmacology an allosteric regulator (or allosteric modulator) is a substance that binds to a site on an enzyme or receptor distinct from the active site, resulting in a conformational change that alters the protein's activity, either enhancing or inhibiting its function. In contrast, substances that bind directly to an enzyme's active site or the binding site of the endogenous ligand of a receptor are called orthosteric regulators or modulators.

The site to which the effector binds is termed the allosteric site or regulatory site. Allosteric sites allow effectors to bind to the protein, often resulting in a conformational change and/or a change in protein dynamics.[1][2] Effectors that enhance the protein's activity are referred to as allosteric activators, whereas those that decrease the protein's activity are called allosteric inhibitors.

Allosteric regulations are a natural example of control loops, such as feedback from downstream products or feedforward from upstream substrates. Long-range allostery is especially important in cell signaling.[3] Allosteric regulation is also particularly important in the cell's ability to adjust enzyme activity.

The term allostery comes from the Ancient Greek allos (ἄλλος), "other", and stereos (στερεός), "solid (object)". This is in reference to the fact that the regulatory site of an allosteric protein is physically distinct from its active site. Allostery contrasts with substrate presentation which requires no conformational change for an enzyme's activation. The term orthostery comes from the Ancient Greek orthós (ὀρθός) meaning "straight", "upright", "right" or "correct".

Ortho vs. allosteric inhibitors

[edit]

Orthosteric

[edit]
  1. Binding Site: Orthosteric inhibitors bind directly to the enzyme's active site, where the substrate normally binds.
  2. Mechanism of Action: By occupying the active site, these inhibitors prevent the substrate from binding, thereby directly blocking the enzyme's catalytic activity.
  3. Competitive Inhibition: Most orthosteric inhibitors compete with the substrate for the active site, which means their effectiveness can be reduced if substrate concentration increases.

Allosteric

[edit]
  1. Binding Site: Allosteric inhibitors bind to a site on the enzyme that is distinct and separate from the active site, known as the allosteric site.
  2. Mechanism of Action: Binding to the allosteric site induces a conformational change in the enzyme that can either reduce the affinity of the active site for the substrate or alter the enzyme's catalytic activity. This indirect interference can inhibit the enzyme's function even if the substrate is present.
  3. Non-Competitive Inhibition: Allosteric inhibitors often exhibit non-competitive inhibition, meaning their inhibitory effect is not dependent on the substrate concentration.

Models

[edit]
A – Active site
B – Allosteric site
C – Substrate
D – Inhibitor
E – Enzyme
This is a diagram of allosteric regulation of an enzyme.

Many allosteric effects can be explained by the concerted MWC model put forth by Monod, Wyman, and Changeux,[4] or by the sequential model (also known as the KNF model) described by Koshland, Nemethy, and Filmer.[5] Both postulate that protein subunits exist in one of two conformations, tensed (T) or relaxed (R), and that relaxed subunits bind substrate more readily than those in the tense state. The two models differ most in their assumptions about subunit interaction and the preexistence of both states. For proteins in which subunits exist in more than two conformations, the allostery landscape model described by Cuendet, Weinstein, and LeVine,[6] can be used. Allosteric regulation may be facilitated by the evolution of large-scale, low-energy conformational changes, which enables long-range allosteric interaction between distant binding sites.[7]

Concerted model

[edit]

The concerted model of allostery, also referred to as the symmetry model or MWC model, postulates that enzyme subunits are connected in such a way that a conformational change in one subunit is necessarily conferred to all other subunits. Thus, all subunits must exist in the same conformation. The model further holds that, in the absence of any ligand (substrate or otherwise), the equilibrium favors one of the conformational states, T or R. The equilibrium can be shifted to the R or T state through the binding of one ligand (the allosteric effector or ligand) to a site that is different from the active site[citation needed]

Sequential model

[edit]

The sequential model of allosteric regulation holds that subunits are not connected in such a way that a conformational change in one induces a similar change in the others. Thus, all enzyme subunits do not necessitate the same conformation. Moreover, the sequential model dictates that molecules of a substrate bind via an induced fit protocol. While such an induced fit converts a subunit from the tensed state to relaxed state, it does not propagate the conformational change to adjacent subunits. Instead, substrate-binding at one subunit only slightly alters the structure of other subunits so that their binding sites are more receptive to substrate. To summarize:[citation needed]

  • subunits need not exist in the same conformation
  • molecules of substrate bind via induced-fit protocol
  • conformational changes are not propagated to all subunits

Morpheein model

[edit]

The morpheein model of allosteric regulation is a dissociative concerted model.[8]

A morpheein is a homo-oligomeric structure that can exist as an ensemble of physiologically significant and functionally different alternate quaternary assemblies. Transitions between alternate morpheein assemblies involve oligomer dissociation, conformational change in the dissociated state, and reassembly to a different oligomer. The required oligomer disassembly step differentiates the morpheein model for allosteric regulation from the classic MWC and KNF models.[citation needed]

Porphobilinogen synthase (PBGS) is the prototype morpheein.[citation needed]

Ensemble models

[edit]

Ensemble models of allosteric regulation enumerate an allosteric system's statistical ensemble as a function of its potential energy function, and then relate specific statistical measurements of allostery to specific energy terms in the energy function (such as an intermolecular salt bridge between two domains).[9] Ensemble models like the ensemble allosteric model[10] and allosteric Ising model[11] assume that each domain of the system can adopt two states similar to the MWC model. The allostery landscape model introduced by Cuendet, Weinstein, and LeVine[6] allows for the domains to have any number of states and the contribution of a specific molecular interaction to a given allosteric coupling can be estimated using a rigorous set of rules. Molecular dynamics simulations can be used to estimate a system's statistical ensemble so that it can be analyzed with the allostery landscape model.[citation needed]

Allosteric modulation

[edit]
Main article: Allosteric modulator

Allosteric modulation is used to alter the activity of molecules and enzymes in biochemistry and pharmacology. For comparison, a typical drug is made to bind to the active site of an enzyme which thus prohibits binding of a substrate to that enzyme causing a decrease in enzyme activity. Allosteric modulation occurs when an effector binds to an allosteric site (also known as a regulatory site) of an enzyme and alters the enzyme activity. Allosteric modulators are designed to fit the allosteric site to cause a conformational change of the enzyme, in particular a change in the shape of the active site, which then causes a change in its activity. In contrast to typical drugs, modulators are not competitive inhibitors. They can be positive (activating) causing an increase of the enzyme activity or negative (inhibiting) causing a decrease of the enzyme activity. The use of allosteric modulation allows the control of the effects of specific enzyme activities; as a result, allosteric modulators are very effective in pharmacology.[12] In a biological system, allosteric modulation can be difficult to distinguish from modulation by substrate presentation.[citation needed]

Energy sensing model

[edit]

An example of this model is seen with the Mycobacterium tuberculosis, a bacterium that is perfectly suited to adapt to living in the macrophages of humans. The enzyme's sites serve as a communication between different substrates. Specifically between AMP and G6P. Sites like these also serve as a sensing mechanism for the enzyme's performance.[13]

Positive modulation

[edit]

Positive allosteric modulation (also known as allosteric activation) occurs when the binding of one ligand enhances the attraction between substrate molecules and other binding sites. An example is the binding of oxygen molecules to hemoglobin, where oxygen is effectively both the substrate and the effector. The allosteric, or "other", site is the active site of an adjoining protein subunit. The binding of oxygen to one subunit induces a conformational change in that subunit that interacts with the remaining active sites to enhance their oxygen affinity. Another example of allosteric activation is seen in cytosolic IMP-GMP specific 5'-nucleotidase II (cN-II), where the affinity for substrate GMP increases upon GTP binding at the dimer interface.[citation needed]

Negative modulation

[edit]

Negative allosteric modulation (also known as allosteric inhibition) occurs when the binding of one ligand decreases the affinity for substrate at other active sites. For example, when 2,3-BPG binds to an allosteric site on hemoglobin, the affinity for oxygen of all subunits decreases. This is when a regulator is absent from the binding site.[citation needed]

Direct thrombin inhibitors provides an excellent example of negative allosteric modulation. Allosteric inhibitors of thrombin have been discovered that could potentially be used as anticoagulants.[citation needed]

Another example is strychnine, a convulsant poison, which acts as an allosteric inhibitor of the glycine receptor. Glycine is a major post-synaptic inhibitory neurotransmitter in mammalian spinal cord and brain stem. Strychnine acts at a separate binding site on the glycine receptor in an allosteric manner; i.e., its binding lowers the affinity of the glycine receptor for glycine. Thus, strychnine inhibits the action of an inhibitory transmitter, leading to convulsions.[citation needed]

Another instance in which negative allosteric modulation can be seen is between ATP and the enzyme phosphofructokinase within the negative feedback loop that regulates glycolysis. Phosphofructokinase (generally referred to as PFK) is an enzyme that catalyses the third step of glycolysis: the phosphorylation of fructose-6-phosphate into fructose 1,6-bisphosphate. PFK can be allosterically inhibited by high levels of ATP within the cell. When ATP levels are high, ATP will bind to an allosteric site on phosphofructokinase, causing a change in the enzyme's three-dimensional shape. This change causes its affinity for substrate (fructose-6-phosphate and ATP) at the active site to decrease, and the enzyme is deemed inactive. This causes glycolysis to cease when ATP levels are high, thus conserving the body's glucose and maintaining balanced levels of cellular ATP. In this way, ATP serves as a negative allosteric modulator for PFK, despite the fact that it is also a substrate of the enzyme.[citation needed]

Types

[edit]

Homotropic

[edit]

A homotropic allosteric modulator is a substrate for its target protein, as well as a regulatory molecule of the protein's activity. It is typically an activator of the protein.[14] For example, O2 and CO are homotropic allosteric modulators of hemoglobin. Likewise, in IMP/GMP specific 5' nucleotidase, binding of one GMP molecule to a single subunit of the tetrameric enzyme leads to increased affinity for GMP by the subsequent subunits as revealed by sigmoidal substrate versus velocity plots.[14]

Heterotropic

[edit]

A heterotropic allosteric modulator is a regulatory molecule that is not the enzyme's substrate. It may be either an activator or an inhibitor of the enzyme. For example, H+, CO2, and 2,3-bisphosphoglycerate are heterotropic allosteric modulators of hemoglobin.[15] Once again, in IMP/GMP specific 5' nucleotidase, binding of GTP molecule at the dimer interface in the tetrameric enzyme leads to increased affinity for substrate GMP at the active site indicating towards K-type heterotropic allosteric activation.[14]

As has been amply highlighted above, some allosteric proteins can be regulated by both their substrates and other molecules. Such proteins are capable of both homotropic and heterotropic interactions.[14]

Essential activators

[edit]

Some allosteric activators are referred to as "essential", or "obligate" activators, in the sense that in their absence, the activity of their target enzyme activity is very low or negligible, as is the case with N-acetylglutamate's activity on carbamoyl phosphate synthetase I, for example.[16][17]

Non-regulatory allostery

[edit]

A non-regulatory allosteric site is any non-regulatory component of an enzyme (or any protein), that is not itself an amino acid. For instance, many enzymes require sodium binding to ensure proper function. However, the sodium does not necessarily act as a regulatory subunit; the sodium is always present and there are no known biological processes to add/remove sodium to regulate enzyme activity. Non-regulatory allostery could comprise any other ions besides sodium (calcium, magnesium, zinc), as well as other chemicals and possibly vitamins.[citation needed]

Pharmacology

[edit]

Allosteric modulation of a receptor results from the binding of allosteric modulators at a different site (a "regulatory site") from that of the endogenous ligand (an "active site") and enhances or inhibits the effects of the endogenous ligand. Under normal circumstances, it acts by causing a conformational change in a receptor molecule, which results in a change in the binding affinity of the ligand. In this way, an allosteric ligand modulates the receptor's activation by its primary orthosteric ligand, and can be thought to act like a dimmer switch in an electrical circuit, adjusting the intensity of the response.[citation needed]

For example, the GABAA receptor has two active sites that the neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) binds, but also has benzodiazepine and general anaesthetic agent regulatory binding sites. These regulatory sites can each produce positive allosteric modulation, potentiating the activity of GABA. Diazepam is a positive allosteric modulator at the benzodiazepine regulatory site, and its antidote flumazenil is a receptor antagonist.[citation needed]

More recent examples of drugs that allosterically modulate their targets include the calcium-mimicking cinacalcet and the HIV treatment maraviroc.[citation needed]

Allosteric sites as drug targets

[edit]

Allosteric proteins are involved in, and are central in many diseases,[18][19] and allosteric sites may represent a novel drug target. There are a number of advantages in using allosteric modulators as preferred therapeutic agents over classic orthosteric ligands. For example, G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) allosteric binding sites have not faced the same evolutionary pressure as orthosteric sites to accommodate an endogenous ligand, so are more diverse.[20] Therefore, greater GPCR selectivity may be obtained by targeting allosteric sites.[20] This is particularly useful for GPCRs where selective orthosteric therapy has been difficult because of sequence conservation of the orthosteric site across receptor subtypes.[21] Also, these modulators have a decreased potential for toxic effects, since modulators with limited co-operativity will have a ceiling level to their effect, irrespective of the administered dose.[20] Another type of pharmacological selectivity that is unique to allosteric modulators is based on co-operativity. An allosteric modulator may display neutral co-operativity with an orthosteric ligand at all subtypes of a given receptor except the subtype of interest, which is termed "absolute subtype selectivity".[21] If an allosteric modulator does not possess appreciable efficacy, it can provide another powerful therapeutic advantage over orthosteric ligands, namely the ability to selectively tune up or down tissue responses only when the endogenous agonist is present.[21] Oligomer-specific small molecule binding sites are drug targets for medically relevant morpheeins.[22]

Synthetic allosteric systems

[edit]

There are many synthetic compounds containing several noncovalent binding sites, which exhibit conformational changes upon occupation of one site. Cooperativity between single binding contributions in such supramolecular systems is positive if occupation of one binding site enhances the affinity ΔG at a second site, and negative if the affinity isn't highered. Most synthetic allosteric complexes rely on conformational reorganization upon the binding of one effector ligand which then leads to either enhanced or weakened association of second ligand at another binding site.[23][24][25] Conformational coupling between several binding sites is in artificial systems usually much larger than in proteins with their usually larger flexibility. The parameter which determines the efficiency (as measured by the ratio of equilibrium constants Krel = KA(E)/KA in presence and absence of an effector E ) is the conformational energy needed to adopt a closed or strained conformation for the binding of a ligand A.[26]

In many multivalent supramolecular systems[27] direct interaction between bound ligands can occur, which can lead to large cooperativities. Most common is such a direct interaction between ions in receptors for ion-pairs.[28][29] This cooperativity is often also referred to as allostery, even though conformational changes here are not necessarily triggering binding events.[citation needed]

Online resources

[edit]

Allosteric Database

[edit]

Allostery is a direct and efficient means for regulation of biological macromolecule function, produced by the binding of a ligand at an allosteric site topographically distinct from the orthosteric site. Due to the often high receptor selectivity and lower target-based toxicity, allosteric regulation is also expected to play an increasing role in drug discovery and bioengineering. The AlloSteric Database (ASD)[30] provides a central resource for the display, search and analysis of the structure, function and related annotation for allosteric molecules. Currently, ASD contains allosteric proteins from more than 100 species and modulators in three categories (activators, inhibitors, and regulators). Each protein is annotated with detailed description of allostery, biological process and related diseases, and each modulator with binding affinity, physicochemical properties and therapeutic area. Integrating the information of allosteric proteins in ASD should allow the prediction of allostery for unknown proteins, to be followed with experimental validation. In addition, modulators curated in ASD can be used to investigate potential allosteric targets for a query compound, and can help chemists to implement structure modifications for novel allosteric drug design.[citation needed]

Allosteric residues and their prediction

[edit]

Not all protein residues play equally important roles in allosteric regulation. The identification of residues that are essential to allostery (so-called "allosteric residues") has been the focus of many studies, especially within the last decade.[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] In part, this growing interest is a result of their general importance in protein science, but also because allosteric residues may be exploited in biomedical contexts. Pharmacologically important proteins with difficult-to-target sites may yield to approaches in which one alternatively targets easier-to-reach residues that are capable of allosterically regulating the primary site of interest.[39] These residues can broadly be classified as surface- and interior-allosteric amino acids. Allosteric sites at the surface generally play regulatory roles that are fundamentally distinct from those within the interior; surface residues may serve as receptors or effector sites in allosteric signal transmission, whereas those within the interior may act to transmit such signals.[40][41]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Allosteric regulation

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Allosteric regulation is a fundamental biochemical mechanism in which the binding of an effector to a specific site on a protein, distinct from its (termed the allosteric site), modulates the protein's activity, typically by inducing conformational changes that alter its affinity for substrates or other ligands. This process enables precise control of protein function through energetic coupling between distant binding events, often resulting in or inhibitory effects that are essential for cellular responsiveness. First conceptualized in the early , allosteric regulation exemplifies how proteins, particularly oligomeric enzymes and receptors, achieve regulatory flexibility without direct competition at the functional site. The term "allosteric" was introduced by , Jean-Pierre Changeux, and François Jacob in 1963 to describe regulation at an "other site," building on observations of cooperative ligand binding in systems like . Two seminal models emerged to explain these phenomena: the Monod-Wyman-Changeux (MWC) model, which posits that allosteric proteins exist in equilibrium between a tense (T) state with low affinity and a relaxed (R) state with high affinity, shifting concertedly upon effector binding while preserving molecular symmetry; and the Koshland-Némethy-Filmer (KNF) model, which describes sequential conformational changes in individual subunits induced by binding. These frameworks highlight homotropic effects (interactions among identical s, typically cooperative) and heterotropic effects (interactions between different ligands, which can activate or inhibit). In biological systems, allosteric regulation plays a pivotal role in metabolic pathways, , and by allowing rapid, reversible adjustments to environmental cues. Classic examples include , where oxygen binding at one subunit enhances affinity at others (positive homotropic ), and , a key glycolytic enzyme inhibited by ATP at an allosteric site to prevent unnecessary glucose breakdown. Modern views emphasize dynamic ensembles and protein flexibility, extending allostery beyond rigid conformational shifts to include intrinsically disordered regions and long-range communication networks, as revealed by techniques like NMR spectroscopy and simulations. This mechanism's ubiquity underscores its evolutionary significance in achieving efficient cellular control.

Fundamentals

Definition and Principles

Allosteric regulation is a fundamental mechanism in biochemistry whereby the binding of an effector to a specific site on a protein, known as the allosteric site and distinct from the , induces a conformational change that modulates the protein's functional properties, such as its enzymatic activity, affinity, or overall response to substrates. This process allows for precise control of protein function without directly interfering with the primary binding or catalytic . The concept of allosteric regulation originated from studies on bacterial enzyme systems in the mid-20th century, with the term "allosteric" coined by and François Jacob in 1961 to describe the indirect regulatory interactions observed in feedback inhibition of metabolic enzymes, such as those involved in biosynthesis pathways. Early insights into allosteric phenomena were also drawn from the cooperative oxygen binding behavior of , which had been noted since the early 1900s but was later interpreted through an allosteric lens as involving conformational shifts across subunits. Central principles of allosteric regulation include the promotion of , particularly in multi-subunit proteins, where binding at one site enhances or diminishes affinity at adjacent sites through propagated structural changes. Unlike , which occurs at the and can be reversed by excess substrate, allosteric modulation typically exerts non-competitive effects by altering the enzyme's intrinsic kinetics or accessibility, independent of substrate concentration. This mechanism is integral to metabolic feedback loops, enabling rapid cellular adjustments to fluctuating levels and maintaining in pathways like and the . A key mathematical description of allosteric cooperativity is provided by the Hill equation, which quantifies the sigmoidal binding curves characteristic of such systems: Y=[L]nKd+[L]nY = \frac{[L]^n}{K_d + [L]^n} Here, YY represents the fractional saturation of the protein with , [L][L] is the concentration, KdK_d is the apparent (reflecting the concentration at half-saturation), and nn is the Hill coefficient, where n>1n > 1 indicates positive (as seen in , with n≈2.8n \approx 2.8), n<1n < 1 suggests negative , and n=1n = 1 implies no . To derive this equation, consider a simplified model assuming extreme cooperativity, where the protein (with nn binding sites) transitions in an all-or-none manner: the unbound form (U) binds nn ligands (L) to form the fully bound state (B) via the reaction U+nL⇌B\mathrm{U} + n\mathrm{L} \rightleftharpoons \mathrm{B}, governed by the association constant K=[B][U][L]nK = \frac{[\mathrm{B}]}{[\mathrm{U}][\mathrm{L}]^n}. Thus, [B]=K[U][L]n[\mathrm{B}] = K [\mathrm{U}] [\mathrm{L}]^n. The total protein concentration is [total]=[U]+[B][\mathrm{total}] = [\mathrm{U}] + [\mathrm{B}], so substituting gives [total]=[U](1+K[L]n)[\mathrm{total}] = [\mathrm{U}] (1 + K [\mathrm{L}]^n), and the fractional saturation Y=n[B]n[total]=K[L]n1+K[L]nY = \frac{n [\mathrm{B}]}{n [\mathrm{total}]} = \frac{K [\mathrm{L}]^n}{1 + K [\mathrm{L}]^n}. Redefining Kd=1/KK_d = 1/K yields the standard form, providing a phenomenological approximation to more complex binding equilibria like those in .

Orthosteric vs. Allosteric Binding

Orthosteric binding refers to the interaction of ligands directly with the active site of an enzyme or receptor, where the endogenous substrate or agonist typically binds. This mode of binding often involves direct competition, in which the orthosteric ligand alters substrate access through mechanisms such as steric hindrance or molecular mimicry of the substrate. A classic example is aspirin, which acts as an orthosteric inhibitor of cyclooxygenase (COX) enzymes by irreversibly acetylating a serine residue in the active site, thereby blocking arachidonic acid binding and preventing prostaglandin synthesis. In contrast, allosteric binding occurs at sites remote from the active site, where the ligand induces conformational changes that propagate through the protein structure to modulate activity at the orthosteric site. These changes often involve flexible regions such as hinge domains or inter-domain linkages, allowing the allosteric effector to influence the protein's shape without directly occupying the catalytic center. Structurally, orthosteric sites are highly conserved across related proteins to ensure efficient catalysis, reflecting evolutionary pressure for precise substrate recognition. Allosteric sites, however, exhibit greater variability and can form pocket-like cavities or occur at protein-protein interfaces, making them amenable to selective targeting. These sites are commonly identified using techniques like , which reveals static conformations, or nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, which captures dynamic ensembles in solution. Functionally, orthosteric binding typically results in binary on/off regulation, such as complete inhibition or activation, due to direct interference with the catalytic machinery. Allosteric binding, by altering the conformational equilibrium, enables graded modulation of activity, which can amplify or dampen responses in signaling pathways for finer physiological control. A key distinction is that allosteric sites can be either intramolecular, within a single polypeptide chain, or intermolecular, at interfaces between subunits in oligomeric proteins, facilitating cooperative effects across the complex. Orthosteric sites, however, are invariably intramolecular and localized to the catalytic core of the individual subunit.

Theoretical Models

Concerted Model

The concerted model of allosteric regulation, formally known as the Monod-Wyman-Changeux (MWC) model, was introduced in 1965 as a theoretical framework to describe symmetric conformational changes in oligomeric proteins that lead to cooperative ligand binding. This model emphasizes that allosteric effects arise from shifts in the equilibrium between distinct conformational states of the entire protein oligomer, rather than subunit-specific alterations. At its core, the MWC model assumes that a multi-subunit protein exists in equilibrium between two extreme conformations: a tense (T) state with low affinity for the ligand and a relaxed (R) state with high affinity. All subunits transition concertedly and simultaneously between these states, maintaining perfect symmetry and prohibiting hybrid forms where some subunits are in the T state and others in the R state. This all-or-none mechanism ensures that the protein's quaternary structure remains symmetric throughout the transition, with the unliganded T state predominating under physiological conditions due to its energetic stability. The mathematical foundation of the model centers on the equilibrium constant L=[T0][R0]L = \frac{[T_0]}{[R_0]} for the unliganded forms, where [T0][T_0] and [R0][R_0] are the concentrations of the T and R states without ligand; LL is typically much greater than 1, favoring the T state. Ligand (S) binds independently to each subunit within a given state, with dissociation constants KTK_T (for T) and KRK_R (for R), where KT≫KRK_T \gg K_R reflects the lower affinity of the T state; the ratio c=KRKT<1c = \frac{K_R}{K_T} < 1 quantifies this difference. Allosteric effectors modulate LL by binding preferentially to either the T or R state, thereby shifting the T-R equilibrium and altering ligand affinity. To derive the binding curve, consider an oligomer with nn subunits. The partition function for the R state is (1+α)n(1 + \alpha)^n, where α=[S]KR\alpha = \frac{[S]}{K_R}, accounting for noncooperative binding within the R conformation (binomial distribution of 0 to nn ligands). Similarly, for the T state, it is L(1+cα)nL (1 + c \alpha)^n. The total partition function ZZ is thus Z=(1+α)n+L(1+cα)nZ = (1 + \alpha)^n + L (1 + c \alpha)^n. The fractional saturation YY, defined as the average number of bound ligands per site, is obtained by differentiating the logarithm of ZZ with respect to ln⁡α\ln \alpha (or equivalently, summing weighted liganded forms): Y=α(1+α)n−1+Lcα(1+cα)n−1(1+α)n+L(1+cα)n.Y = \frac{\alpha (1 + \alpha)^{n-1} + L c \alpha (1 + c \alpha)^{n-1}}{(1 + \alpha)^n + L (1 + c \alpha)^n}. For large LL and small cc (e.g., n=4n = 4, L≈106L \approx 10^6, c≈0.01c \approx 0.01), this yields a sigmoidal curve: initial binding to the T state is weak (hyperbolic at low [S]), but as ligands accumulate, the R state is stabilized, accelerating subsequent binding and producing cooperative behavior. A key prediction of the model is that positive cooperativity emerges from ligand-induced stabilization of the high-affinity R state, without requiring subunit interactions beyond the symmetric transition; heterotropic effectors enhance this by further biasing the equilibrium (e.g., activators decrease LL, inhibitors increase it). This framework applies directly to , a tetrameric protein (n=4n = 4), where oxygen binding shifts the equilibrium from the low-affinity deoxy T state to the high-affinity oxy R state, enabling efficient oxygen transport. Structural studies have validated this by revealing distinct conformations: the T state features salt bridges and constrained heme pockets in deoxyhemoglobin, while the R state shows relaxed interfaces and planar hemes in oxyhemoglobin, consistent with the concerted switch. Despite its foundational impact, the MWC model has limitations, particularly its strict assumption of perfect symmetry, which does not hold for all allosteric proteins that exhibit asymmetric intermediates or partial transitions observed in modern crystallographic and spectroscopic data.

Sequential Model

The sequential model, also known as the Koshland-Némethy-Filmer (KNF) model, was introduced in 1966 by Daniel E. Koshland Jr., George Némethy, and David Filmer as an alternative theoretical framework to the concerted model for describing cooperative binding in multisubunit proteins. This model emphasizes induced-fit mechanisms, where ligand binding triggers local conformational changes that propagate through subunit interactions, challenging the symmetry constraints of prior approaches. In the core mechanism of the KNF model, the binding of a ligand to one subunit induces a conformational change specifically in that subunit, shifting it from a low-affinity (T-like) state to a high-affinity (R-like) state. This change alters the interactions with neighboring subunits, sequentially modifying their binding affinities without requiring a simultaneous global transition across the entire protein. As a result, the model permits hybrid intermediate states in which individual subunits adopt different conformations, reflecting asymmetry in the oligomer. Such stepwise propagation allows for flexible responses to ligand concentration, accommodating both positive and negative cooperativity through variations in subunit adjacency effects. The model applies particularly well to enzymes exhibiting induced-fit behavior, such as aspartate transcarbamoylase (ATCase), where substrate binding to catalytic subunits induces sequential conformational shifts that enhance interactions with regulatory subunits, amplifying enzymatic activity. Compared to concerted models, the KNF framework better explains asymmetry in protein structures and negative cooperativity, where initial binding reduces affinity for subsequent ligands due to unfavorable induced interactions. Mathematically, the KNF model can be described using an Adair-like equation for a tetrameric protein, incorporating stepwise association constants modified by interaction factors α\alpha, β\beta, and γ\gamma that reflect changes in affinity upon successive bindings. The intrinsic binding constant for the first ligand to an unliganded subunit is KK, but subsequent bindings are influenced by the factors: the stepwise constant for the second ligand is αK\alpha K, for the third βK\beta K, and for the fourth γK\gamma K (microscopic constants; macroscopic stepwise constants account for remaining sites). The partition function ZZ is: Z=1+K1[L]+K1K2[L]2+K1K2K3[L]3+K1K2K3K4[L]4,Z = 1 + K_1 [L] + K_1 K_2 [L]^2 + K_1 K_2 K_3 [L]^3 + K_1 K_2 K_3 K_4 [L]^4, where K1=4KK_1 = 4K, K2=3αKK_2 = 3 \alpha K, K3=2βKK_3 = 2 \beta K, K4=γKK_4 = \gamma K (for a symmetric tetramer assuming uniform effect on remaining sites). The average number of bound ligands n‾\overline{n} is: n‾=K1[L]+2K1K2[L]2+3K1K2K3[L]3+4K1K2K3K4[L]4Z,\overline{n} = \frac{ K_1 [L] + 2 K_1 K_2 [L]^2 + 3 K_1 K_2 K_3 [L]^3 + 4 K_1 K_2 K_3 K_4 [L]^4 }{ Z }, and the fractional saturation Y=n‾/4Y = \overline{n}/4. For simplicity, normalizing by setting the intrinsic K=1K = 1 (absorbing into [L]), the interaction factors determine cooperativity: α>1\alpha > 1, β>1\beta > 1 promote positive cooperativity, while values <1 enable negative cooperativity. The derivation relies on successive equilibrium constants and statistical weighting of binding sites, with full generality requiring consideration of subunit geometry (e.g., adjacent vs. non-adjacent interactions).

Advanced Models

Advanced models of allosteric regulation extend beyond the classical concerted (MWC) and sequential (KNF) frameworks by incorporating dynamic oligomeric assembly changes and pre-existing conformational ensembles, addressing limitations in explaining complex regulatory behaviors observed in structural and biophysical studies. These models emphasize the role of subunit dissociation and population dynamics, integrating data from techniques like cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, which reveal protein fluctuations beyond binary tense (T) or relaxed (R) states. The morpheein model, proposed in 2005, describes allostery as a dynamic equilibrium between alternate oligomeric forms of a protein, where effectors influence the assembly state by shifting monomer conformations that dictate quaternary structure multiplicity. In this framework, proteins like human porphobilinogen synthase (PBGS) exist in interconverting assemblies, such as high-activity octamers and low-activity hexamers, with allosteric regulators like Mg²⁺ stabilizing specific forms through dissociation and reassembly of subunits. Unlike classical models that maintain fixed oligomeric stoichiometry during transitions, the morpheein approach allows for regulatory dissociation, enabling non-cooperative or inhibitory allostery via shifts in assembly, as seen in PBGS where hexamer formation reduces catalytic efficiency. This model explains hysteresis and kinetic cooperativity in enzymes where quaternary structure alterations are rate-limiting. Ensemble models, emerging from population-shift theory in the 2000s, posit that proteins pre-exist as diverse conformational ensembles in equilibrium, with allosteric effectors selectively stabilizing subsets of these states rather than inducing new conformations. Rooted in energy landscape theory, this view aligns allostery with thermodynamic redistribution across a rugged landscape of microstates, where binding remodels relative stabilities without strict T/R binaries, allowing nuanced regulation through dynamic fluctuations. Cryo-EM and NMR data support this by capturing heterogeneous populations, such as in calmodulin where ligand binding quenches nanosecond motions to favor active ensembles, highlighting conformational entropy's role in transmission. These models thus accommodate modern observations of intrinsically disordered regions and subtle allosteric networks, differing from classics by emphasizing statistical weighting over discrete switches.

Types of Allosteric Regulation

Homotropic Effects

Homotropic effects represent a specific type of allosteric regulation in which the substrate molecule itself functions as the allosteric effector, binding to one site on a multi-subunit protein and thereby modulating the affinity of identical substrate-binding sites on other subunits. This interaction results in cooperative binding behavior, which can be positive—where initial substrate binding enhances affinity at remaining sites—or negative, where it diminishes affinity. Such effects are prevalent in oligomeric enzymes, where multiple subunits allow for inter-subunit communication, leading to non-Michaelis-Menten kinetics that enable fine-tuned responses to substrate availability. The mechanisms underlying homotropic effects typically involve conformational changes transmitted through subunit interfaces, altering the protein's overall structure upon substrate binding at the first site. A classic example is , a tetrameric protein where oxygen (O₂) binding demonstrates positive homotropism, producing a sigmoidal oxygen-binding curve essential for efficient oxygen loading in the lungs and unloading in tissues. In this process, O₂ binding to one heme group triggers a shift that facilitates binding to the other three, amplifying oxygen capture as concentrations rise. Structurally, these effects arise from the propagation of conformational changes across subunit interfaces, which can increase the exposure or accessibility of active sites in neighboring subunits. In hemoglobin, this is exemplified by the Perutz mechanism, where O₂ binding disrupts stabilizing salt bridges in the low-affinity tense (T) state, promoting a transition to the high-affinity relaxed (R) state and thereby enhancing subsequent O₂ affinity. The extent of positive homotropism is quantified by the Hill coefficient (nHn_H), where nH>1n_H > 1 indicates enhancement, with values approaching the number of binding sites signifying maximal ; negative homotropism, though less common, occurs in enzymes such as glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate (GAPDH), where substrate binding reduces affinity at adjacent sites. Biologically, homotropic effects play a crucial role in amplifying cellular responses to fluctuations in substrate concentrations within metabolic pathways, allowing enzymes to act as sensitive switches rather than linear responders. For instance, in oxygen transport or glycolytic enzymes like , positive homotropism ensures rapid activation when substrates accumulate, optimizing through critical pathways while conserving resources at low concentrations.

Heterotropic Effects

Heterotropic effects in allosteric regulation occur when an , distinct from the substrate, binds to a remote site on the protein and modulates its affinity for the substrate, either enhancing or reducing binding efficiency. These effectors, often small metabolites, serve as activators that increase substrate affinity or inhibitors that decrease it, enabling fine-tuned responses to cellular conditions through feedback mechanisms. Unlike homotropic effects where the substrate itself influences binding, heterotropic regulation introduces external signals for broader metabolic control. A classic example is the inhibition of by (ATP), which acts as a heterotropic effector by stabilizing the tense (T) state of the protein, thereby reducing its affinity for oxygen and facilitating oxygen release in tissues. This interaction is particularly relevant in conditions of high energy demand, where ATP levels rise and promote deoxygenation. Similarly, (CTP) functions as a heterotropic inhibitor of aspartate transcarbamoylase (ATCase), an enzyme in ; by binding to allosteric sites, CTP shifts ATCase toward its low-activity conformation, providing feedback inhibition to prevent of pyrimidines when CTP accumulates. The underlying mechanism involves the effector binding preferentially to one conformational state of the protein—either the relaxed () or tense (T) form—altering the equilibrium between these states and thereby influencing substrate binding at the . For instance, inhibitory effectors like CTP bind more tightly to the T state of ATCase, locking the enzyme in a less active form, while activators might favor the state to promote . This remote binding ensures that heterotropic effects integrate diverse signals without directly competing at the substrate site. In signaling proteins such as G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), heterotropic allostery is prevalent, allowing multiple effectors to converge and modulate receptor activation for coordinated cellular responses. Descriptively, the strength of heterotropic effects is characterized by differences in effector binding affinities between conformational states, such as higher affinity for the T state in inhibitory cases, which amplifies the shift toward substrate-repelling conformations and underscores the regulatory precision in metabolic pathways.

Essential Activators and Non-Regulatory Cases

Essential activators are ligands that must bind to allosteric sites to enable the basal catalytic activity of an enzyme, without which the protein remains inactive. These obligatory bindings differ from facultative regulatory effectors by being indispensable for function rather than modulating an already active state. A prominent class involves divalent metal ions, such as Mg²⁺, which serve as essential activators for enzymes like phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase (PEPC) by coordinating with substrates and stabilizing the active conformation at remote sites. In this mechanism, the metal ion binds allosterically to induce a conformational shift that aligns catalytic residues, distinct from orthosteric inhibitors that block the active site directly. Essential allosteric activation is prevalent in metabolic pathways where precise control is required. For instance, in some kinases, metal ions like Mn²⁺ or Co²⁺ act as essential activators by facilitating binding and stabilizing the enzyme's active form without invoking . These activators promote fine-tuned activation in response to cellular metal availability, ensuring enzymatic efficiency in ion-variable environments. Non-regulatory allostery refers to incidental conformational changes triggered by binding at allosteric sites, lacking evolutionary intent for functional and often arising as byproducts of protein dynamics. Such effects can occur when drugs bind off-target sites, inducing unintended structural shifts that alter protein stability or interactions without modulating intended pathways. For example, certain cancer therapeutics exhibit off-target allosteric binding to non-kinase proteins, leading to independent of their primary mechanism. These incidental allosteries have been increasingly uncovered through campaigns since 2010, which serendipitously reveal non-functional binding events during modulator hunts. Biologically, essential activators enable tightly controlled enzymatic onset critical for metabolic integration, while non-regulatory cases pose risks in , such as drug-induced from unforeseen conformational perturbations. In off-target scenarios, these effects can exacerbate adverse reactions by propagating unintended signals across protein networks.

Modulation Mechanisms

Positive and Negative Allosteric Modulation

Positive allosteric modulators (PAMs) bind to sites distinct from the orthosteric ligand-binding site on a protein, enhancing the affinity or of the endogenous without activating the protein on their own. This modulation typically stabilizes the active conformation of the protein, increasing substrate affinity or maximal velocity in enzymes, or potentiating opening in receptors. For instance, benzodiazepines act as PAMs at GABA_A receptors, increasing the frequency of channel opening in response to GABA, which amplifies inhibitory in the . In contrast, negative allosteric modulators (NAMs) decrease protein activity by reducing affinity or , often by stabilizing inactive conformations. These effects are reversible and non-competitive, as they do not directly compete with the orthosteric . A classic physiological example is ATP acting as a NAM on phosphofructokinase-1 (PFK-1), an in , where it binds an allosteric site to inhibit activity at high energy states, preventing unnecessary glucose breakdown. In pharmacological contexts, NAMs like certain antagonists at metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs) diminish excitatory signaling, such as in models of neurodevelopmental disorders. Physiologically, positive allosteric modulation allows for signal amplification in pathways, enhancing responses to low concentrations for fine-tuned , while negative modulation provides dampening to maintain and improve signal fidelity, such as in feedback inhibition mechanisms. PAMs have been integral to CNS therapeutics since the , with compounds like benzodiazepines widely used for anxiety and due to their ability to boost endogenous GABA signaling without full .

Energy Sensing and Metabolic Integration

Allosteric regulation enables cells to sense and respond to fluctuations in energy availability by modulating activity through effectors that reflect the adenylate pool status. A primary example is (AMPK), which is allosterically activated by AMP binding when the AMP/ATP ratio rises during energy stress, such as nutrient deprivation or increased workload. This activation promotes ATP-generating pathways like fatty acid oxidation and inhibits anabolic processes, thereby restoring cellular energy balance. The adenylate energy charge (EC) quantifies this energy status using the formula EC=[ATP]+0.5[ADP][ATP]+[ADP]+[AMP],EC = \frac{[ATP] + 0.5[ADP]}{[ATP] + [ADP] + [AMP]}, where values typically range from 0.8 to 0.95 in healthy cells, serving as a threshold for allosteric responses. Effectors like AMP bind to regulatory sites on target enzymes when EC drops below these levels, enhancing flux through catabolic routes such as and the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle, while high ATP levels inhibit these pathways to prevent energy waste. For instance, in , AMP relieves ATP inhibition of phosphofructokinase-1 (PFK-1), increasing glucose breakdown, and in the TCA cycle, elevated ATP allosterically suppresses to slow oxidative metabolism. Allosteric mechanisms integrate metabolic signals across pathways to coordinate overall . A key integrator is fructose-2,6-bisphosphate (F2,6BP), which acts as a potent allosteric activator of PFK-1, dramatically lowering its Km for fructose-6-phosphate and overriding ATP inhibition to boost glycolytic rates in response to insulin signaling or high glucose availability. This coordination ensures that glycolytic output aligns with downstream needs, such as TCA cycle entry, preventing metabolite imbalances. Allosteric hubs in mitochondria link (ROS) signals to energy metabolism, with post-2020 studies expanding understanding of bioenergetic by connecting these to and stress responses. For example, the mitochondrial Na+/Ca2+ exchanger (NCLX) undergoes allosteric modulation by —as first demonstrated in 2018—which reflects ATP/ADP ratios and has been linked in recent studies to ROS-induced perturbations under conditions like hypoxia, thereby coupling Ca2+ with adjustments to mitigate stress. These hubs enable fine-tuned responses to ROS, which arise from leaks during high energy demand, preventing damage while optimizing flux.

Applications

Pharmacological Targeting

Allosteric drugs target sites distinct from the orthosteric binding pocket, enabling greater selectivity by avoiding direct competition with endogenous ligands and reducing off-target effects on related proteins. This approach is particularly advantageous for G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) and enzymes where orthosteric sites are highly conserved across subtypes, limiting the specificity of traditional inhibitors. By modulating protein function through conformational changes rather than occupancy, allosteric agents can fine-tune activity in a ligand-dependent manner, preserving physiological signaling while correcting pathological dysregulation. Drug design strategies for allosteric modulators emphasize positive allosteric modulators (PAMs), which enhance affinity or , and negative allosteric modulators (NAMs), which diminish it, allowing for nuanced therapeutic control. identifies initial hits by assaying functional modulation, often followed by structure-based optimization using cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) structures, which have surged since 2015 to reveal modulator-bound conformations in complex systems like GPCRs. Computational tools, including simulations and machine learning-based site prediction, further refine leads by mapping allosteric pockets and predicting binding modes. Representative examples include calcilytics, NAMs of the calcium-sensing receptor (CaSR) that transiently increase secretion to promote bone formation in treatment. Compounds such as MK-5442 have been tested in phase II clinical s, though discontinued due to insufficient . For schizophrenia, PAMs of metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs), such as AZD8529 targeting mGluR2, enhance glutamate signaling to alleviate positive and negative symptoms by normalizing cortical excitability, though a phase II did not show significant improvement in symptoms despite good tolerability and reduced side effects compared to orthosteric antipsychotics. By 2025, numerous FDA-approved allosteric drugs underscore the clinical success of this paradigm, including , a PAM of the CFTR for treatment, and enasidenib, an allosteric inhibitor of mutant IDH2 for . Other approvals span antivirals, kinase inhibitors, and GPCR modulators, reflecting a post-2020 expansion driven by structural insights. Despite these advances, challenges persist in identifying transient or cryptic allosteric sites, which often lack high-resolution structures and require integrative approaches like hydrogen-deuterium exchange for validation. Achieving specificity remains critical to mitigate off-target modulation, as allosteric effects can propagate unpredictably through protein networks, necessitating rigorous selectivity profiling in .

Synthetic and Engineered Systems

Synthetic allosteric systems represent a in and , where artificial allosteric sites are introduced into proteins or nucleic acids to enable tunable control over function, mimicking natural for biotechnological applications. These systems often employ computational design or evolutionary methods to create switches that respond to specific ligands, light, or other signals, allowing precise regulation without relying on native allosteric mechanisms. Advances since the have expanded the toolkit for de novo , enabling the creation of allosteric effectors that integrate into cellular networks for dynamic control. Rational design approaches, such as those using the Rosetta software suite, have facilitated the engineering of allosteric proteins by predicting and optimizing conformational changes upon ligand binding. For instance, researchers computationally redesigned variants of the LacI repressor to respond to novel ligands like fucose or sucralose, introducing allosteric sites that alter DNA-binding affinity with high specificity. Similarly, de novo design has produced two-domain proteins exhibiting allosteric cooperation, where binding of a porphyrin effector at one domain modulates enzymatic activity at a distal site, achieving up to 100-fold activation in phenol oxidation. These methods prioritize structural modeling to ensure stability and signal propagation, often yielding switches with dissociation constants in the micromolar range for practical utility. Directed evolution complements rational design by iteratively selecting variants with enhanced allosteric properties, particularly in multidomain proteins. This technique has been used to evolve biosensors incorporating light-sensitive domains, such as LOV2, into allosteric scaffolds, resulting in proteins that exhibit ligand-dependent changes with improved . In one application, evolution of the PcaV tuned its response to protocatechuate analogs, enabling orthogonal gene regulation in with fold-changes exceeding 50-fold. Such evolutionary strategies reveal how subtle can propagate allosteric signals, often outperforming purely computational predictions in complex environments. Nucleic acid-based synthetic allostery, including engineered riboswitches, provides RNA or DNA modules for post-transcriptional control. Synthetic riboswitches, constructed by fusing aptamers to ribozymes or translation elements, have been optimized for ligand-inducible gene expression in eukaryotes, achieving up to 90% repression in mammalian cells upon theophylline binding. DNA variants, such as allosteric circuits with aptamer gates, enable signal amplification in biosensors, where effector binding triggers hybridization changes for contaminant detection with limits of 1 nM. High-throughput screening has accelerated the discovery of these riboswitches, expanding their orthogonality for multiplexed regulation. Optogenetics has introduced light-responsive allostery into proteins, fusing photoreceptor domains to create switches for spatiotemporal control. Engineered constructs like LightR, which integrates a light-oxygen-voltage domain with nuclear factors, allow blue-light-induced conformational shifts that regulate protein localization with sub-minute kinetics and over 10-fold activity modulation. Similarly, optogenetic , such as Cdc42Lov variants, employ allosteric inactivation upon illumination, inhibiting downstream signaling with in cellular assays. These tools bridge allostery with temporal precision, ideal for studying dynamic processes. In CRISPR systems, engineered allosteric Cas9 variants enhance gene regulation by incorporating inducible domains. Insertion of ligand-binding motifs, like the estrogen receptor, into tolerant hotspots creates switches that activate DNA cleavage only upon hormone addition, reducing off-target effects by over 90% in genome editing. Peptide-based allosteric inhibitors, derived from bacteriophages, further enable reversible control, binding distal sites to block Cas9 activity with IC50 values in the nanomolar range. These 2020s innovations, including conditional guide RNAs, facilitate precise transcriptional modulation in therapeutic contexts. Biotechnological applications of synthetic allostery include allosteric enzymes as biosensors and tunable metabolic pathways in microbes. For example, evolved variants with introduced allosteric sites detect metabolites like NADH with sensitivities below 10 μM, integrating into microbial reporters for real-time monitoring. In , allosteric transcription factors regulate flux in engineered E. coli pathways, boosting isoprenoid production by 5-fold through ligand-tunable feedback. These systems enable dynamic optimization of microbial cell factories, enhancing yields in and pharmaceutical synthesis while minimizing toxicity from overexpression.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10897898/
  2. https://www.unige.ch/sciences/biochimie/Edelstein/Monod%20Wyman%20Changeux%201965.pdf
  3. https://doi.org/10.1021/bi00865a047
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6688844/
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4890769/
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3149185/
  7. https://journals.physiology.org/doi/10.1152/nips.01451.2003
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014579309001926
  9. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1096/fasebj.11.11.9285481
  10. https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB00945
  11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK549795/
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4063350/
  13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165614714000509
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7549105/
  15. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31707704/
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10238671/
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9554917/
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3935618/
  19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2011.10.003
  20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2005.07.003
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/allosteric-enzyme
  22. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep04601
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0098299721001102
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9687781/
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/allosteric-enzyme
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2957487/
  27. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631069103001501
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/cytidine-triphosphate
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2574622/
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC286400/
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016372580700126X
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2472555222136932
  33. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-54421-9
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10742508/
  35. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaw8412
  36. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.4c01043
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7717492/
  38. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554443/
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6027637/
  40. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17923106/
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6445545/
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7235284/
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4839290/
  44. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24093679/
  45. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/bi00851a033
  46. https://www.nature.com/articles/emm201616
  47. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-51808-6
  48. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30566870/
  49. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1089/ars.2024.0737
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5586781/
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1043661821004497
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4780677/
  53. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959440X23000349
  54. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/molecular-biosciences/articles/10.3389/fmolb.2022.1070328/full
  55. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51083461_Calcilytics_Antagonists_of_the_calcium-sensing_receptor_for_the_treatment_of_osteoporosis
  56. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26922656/
  57. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/List-of-currently-approved-allosteric-drugs-136-in-alphabetical-order_tbl1_338897195
  58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959440X25001770
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7920515/
  60. https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcms.1529
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8957532/
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4907361/
  63. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2017062117
  64. https://www.cell.com/biophysj/abstract/S0006-3495%2824%2902866-2
  65. https://jbioleng.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13036-019-0214-z
  66. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14491-x
  67. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abl4589
  68. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssynbio.0c00545
  69. https://elifesciences.org/articles/60647
  70. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2219254120
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4900928/
  72. https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-020-01956-x
  73. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28425-2
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7283098/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.