Hubbry Logo
Ligand (biochemistry)Ligand (biochemistry)Main
Open search
Ligand (biochemistry)
Community hub
Ligand (biochemistry)
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Ligand (biochemistry)
Ligand (biochemistry)
Ligand (biochemistry)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Myoglobin (blue) with its ligand heme (orange) bound. Based on PDB: 1MBO​

In biochemistry and pharmacology, a ligand is a substance that forms a complex with a biomolecule to serve a biological purpose. The etymology stems from Latin ligare, which means 'to bind'. In protein-ligand binding, the ligand is usually a molecule which produces a signal by binding to a site on a target protein. The binding typically results in a change of conformational isomerism (conformation) of the target protein. In DNA-ligand binding studies, the ligand can be a small molecule, ion,[1] or protein[2] which binds to the DNA double helix. The relationship between ligand and binding partner is a function of charge, hydrophobicity, and molecular structure.

Binding occurs by intermolecular forces, such as ionic bonds, hydrogen bonds and Van der Waals forces. The association or docking is actually reversible through dissociation. Measurably irreversible covalent bonding between a ligand and target molecule is atypical in biological systems. In contrast to the definition of ligand in metalorganic and inorganic chemistry, in biochemistry it is ambiguous whether the ligand generally binds at a metal site, as is the case in hemoglobin. In general, the interpretation of ligand is contextual with regards to what sort of binding has been observed.

Ligand binding to a receptor protein alters the conformation by affecting the three-dimensional shape orientation. The conformation of a receptor protein composes the functional state. Ligands include substrates, inhibitors, activators, signaling lipids, and neurotransmitters. The rate of binding is called affinity, and this measurement typifies a tendency or strength of the effect. Binding affinity is actualized not only by host–guest interactions, but also by solvent effects that can play a dominant, steric role which drives non-covalent binding in solution.[3] The solvent provides a chemical environment for the ligand and receptor to adapt, and thus accept or reject each other as partners.

Radioligands are radioisotope labeled compounds used in vivo as tracers in PET studies and for in vitro binding studies.

Receptor/ligand binding affinity

[edit]

The interaction of ligands with their binding sites can be characterized in terms of a binding affinity. In general, high-affinity ligand binding results from greater attractive forces between the ligand and its receptor while low-affinity ligand binding involves less attractive force. In general, high-affinity binding results in a higher occupancy of the receptor by its ligand than is the case for low-affinity binding; the residence time (lifetime of the receptor-ligand complex) does not correlate. High-affinity binding of ligands to receptors is often physiologically important when some of the binding energy can be used to cause a conformational change in the receptor, resulting in altered behavior for example of an associated ion channel or enzyme.

A ligand that can bind to and alter the function of the receptor that triggers a physiological response is called a receptor agonist. Ligands that bind to a receptor but fail to activate the physiological response are receptor antagonists.

Two agonists with similar binding affinity

Agonist binding to a receptor can be characterized both in terms of how much physiological response can be triggered (that is, the efficacy) and in terms of the concentration of the agonist that is required to produce the physiological response (often measured as EC50, the concentration required to produce the half-maximal response). High-affinity ligand binding implies that a relatively low concentration of a ligand is adequate to maximally occupy a ligand-binding site and trigger a physiological response. Receptor affinity is measured by an inhibition constant or Ki value, the concentration required to occupy 50% of the receptor. Ligand affinities are most often measured indirectly as an IC50 value from a competition binding experiment where the concentration of a ligand required to displace 50% of a fixed concentration of reference ligand is determined. The Ki value can be estimated from IC50 through the Cheng Prusoff equation. Ligand affinities can also be measured directly as a dissociation constant (Kd) using methods such as fluorescence quenching, isothermal titration calorimetry or surface plasmon resonance.[4]

Low-affinity binding (high Ki level) implies that a relatively high concentration of a ligand is required before the binding site is maximally occupied and the maximum physiological response to the ligand is achieved. In the example shown to the right, two different ligands bind to the same receptor binding site. Only one of the agonists shown can maximally stimulate the receptor and, thus, can be defined as a full agonist. An agonist that can only partially activate the physiological response is called a partial agonist. In this example, the concentration at which the full agonist (red curve) can half-maximally activate the receptor is about 5 x 10−9 Molar (nM = nanomolar).

Two ligands with different receptor binding affinity.

Binding affinity is most commonly determined using a radiolabeled ligand, known as a tagged ligand. Homologous competitive binding experiments involve binding competition between a tagged ligand and an untagged ligand.[5] Real-time based methods, which are often label-free, such as surface plasmon resonance, dual-polarization interferometry and multi-parametric surface plasmon resonance (MP-SPR) can not only quantify the affinity from concentration based assays; but also from the kinetics of association and dissociation, and in the later cases, the conformational change induced upon binding. MP-SPR also enables measurements in high saline dissociation buffers thanks to a unique optical setup. Microscale thermophoresis (MST), an immobilization-free method[6] was developed. This method allows the determination of the binding affinity without any limitation to the ligand's molecular weight.[7]

For the use of statistical mechanics in a quantitative study of the ligand-receptor binding affinity, see the comprehensive article[8] on the configurational partition function.

Drug or hormone binding potency

[edit]

Binding affinity data alone does not determine the overall potency of a drug or a naturally produced (biosynthesized) hormone.[9]

Potency is a result of the complex interplay of both the binding affinity and the ligand efficacy.[9]

Drug or hormone binding efficacy

[edit]

Ligand efficacy refers to the ability of the ligand to produce a biological response upon binding to the target receptor and the quantitative magnitude of this response. This response may be as an agonist, antagonist, or inverse agonist, depending on the physiological response produced.[10]

Selective and non-selective

[edit]
Main article: Binding selectivity

Selective ligands have a tendency to bind to very limited kinds of receptor, whereas non-selective ligands bind to several types of receptors. This plays an important role in pharmacology, where drugs that are non-selective tend to have more adverse effects, because they bind to several other receptors in addition to the one generating the desired effect.

Hydrophobic ligands

[edit]

For hydrophobic ligands (e.g. PIP2) in complex with a hydrophobic protein (e.g. lipid-gated ion channels) determining the affinity is complicated by non-specific hydrophobic interactions. Non-specific hydrophobic interactions can be overcome when the affinity of the ligand is high.[11] For example, PIP2 binds with high affinity to PIP2 gated ion channels.

Bivalent ligand

[edit]

Bivalent ligands consist of two drug-like molecules (pharmacophores or ligands) connected by an inert linker. There are various kinds of bivalent ligands and are often classified based on what the pharmacophores target. Homobivalent ligands target two of the same receptor types. Heterobivalent ligands target two different receptor types.[12] Bitopic ligands target an orthosteric binding sites and allosteric binding sites on the same receptor.[13] In scientific research, bivalent ligands have been used to study receptor dimers and to investigate their properties. This class of ligands was pioneered by Philip S. Portoghese and coworkers while studying the opioid receptor system.[14][15][16] Bivalent ligands were also reported early on by Micheal Conn and coworkers for the gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor.[17][18] Since these early reports, there have been many bivalent ligands reported for various G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) systems including cannabinoid,[19] serotonin,[20][21] oxytocin,[22] and melanocortin receptor systems,[23][24][25] and for GPCR-LIC systems (D2 and nACh receptors).[12]

Bivalent ligands usually tend to be larger than their monovalent counterparts, and therefore, not 'drug-like' as in Lipinski's rule of five. Many believe this limits their applicability in clinical settings.[26][27] In spite of these beliefs, there have been many ligands that have reported successful pre-clinical animal studies.[24][25][22][28][29][30] Given that some bivalent ligands can have many advantages compared to their monovalent counterparts (such as tissue selectivity, increased binding affinity, and increased potency or efficacy), bivalents may offer some clinical advantages as well.

Mono- and polydesmic ligands

[edit]

Ligands of proteins can be characterized also by the number of protein chains they bind. "Monodesmic" ligands (μόνος: single, δεσμός: binding) are ligands that bind a single protein chain, while "polydesmic" ligands (πολοί: many) [31] are frequent in protein complexes, and are ligands that bind more than one protein chain, typically in or near protein interfaces. Recent research shows that the type of ligands and binding site structure has profound consequences for the evolution, function, allostery and folding of protein compexes.[32][33]

Privileged scaffold

[edit]

A privileged scaffold[34] is a molecular framework or chemical moiety that is statistically recurrent among known drugs or among a specific array of biologically active compounds. These privileged elements[35] can be used as a basis for designing new active biological compounds or compound libraries.

Methods used to study binding

[edit]

Main methods to study protein–ligand interactions are principal hydrodynamic and calorimetric techniques, and principal spectroscopic and structural methods such as

Other techniques include: fluorescence intensity, bimolecular fluorescence complementation, FRET (fluorescent resonance energy transfer) / FRET quenching surface plasmon resonance, bio-layer interferometry, Coimmunopreciptation indirect ELISA, equilibrium dialysis, gel electrophoresis, far western blot, fluorescence polarization anisotropy, electron paramagnetic resonance, microscale thermophoresis, switchSENSE.

The dramatically increased computing power of supercomputers and personal computers has made it possible to study protein–ligand interactions also by means of computational chemistry. For example, a worldwide grid of well over a million ordinary PCs was harnessed for cancer research in the project grid.org, which ended in April 2007. Grid.org has been succeeded by similar projects such as World Community Grid, Human Proteome Folding Project, Compute Against Cancer and Folding@Home.

See also

[edit]

References

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

Ligand (biochemistry)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In biochemistry, a is an atom, , or that binds to a central , such as a protein or , forming a complex that can modulate the biomolecule's function. This binding is typically specific and reversible, often occurring at dedicated sites like active centers or allosteric pockets, and it underpins essential biological processes including , , and molecular transport. For instance, ligands such as hormones or can induce conformational changes in receptors, thereby regulating cellular responses like or ion flow. Ligands are pivotal in intercellular communication, where they act as signaling molecules that bind to cell-surface or intracellular receptors to propagate signals across membranes or within the cell. In multicellular organisms, this interaction facilitates processes such as , differentiation, and immune responses; for example, growth factors like bind to receptor kinases to trigger autophosphorylation and downstream signaling cascades. Intracellular ligands, often small and hydrophobic (e.g., steroid hormones like ), diffuse through the plasma membrane to bind nuclear receptors, altering transcription of target genes. Ligands are classified by their origin, binding affinity, and functional effects, including endogenous ligands produced naturally by the body (e.g., neurotransmitters like ) and exogenous ligands such as pharmaceuticals that mimic or block natural binding. Functionally, they include agonists that activate receptors, antagonists that inhibit them, and partial agonists with intermediate effects, influencing therapeutic strategies in . Binding mechanisms involve diffusional encounter followed by short-range interactions, often guided by electrostatic forces and energy landscapes that optimize association rates.

Fundamentals

Definition and Classification

In biochemistry, a is defined as a or that binds specifically to a target , such as a protein receptor, , or , typically to modulate its biological function. This binding interaction forms a ligand-receptor complex that can initiate or alter physiological responses, such as in cellular processes. The term originates from the Latin ligare, meaning "to bind," and was first introduced in coordination chemistry by Alfred Stock in 1916 to describe molecules attached to a central atom. It was adapted to biochemistry in the mid-20th century, particularly during the , as receptor theory evolved from early concepts proposed by and J.N. Langley, emphasizing specific binding as essential for ("corpora non agunt nisi fixata"). Key properties of ligands include their typically smaller size relative to the target and typically the reversible nature of their binding, which occurs through non-covalent interactions such as hydrogen bonds, van der Waals forces, and ionic bonds. This reversibility allows for dynamic regulation of biomolecular activity, distinguishing most ligands from covalently bound modifiers. Ligands play a central role in signaling pathways by facilitating communication between cells or within cellular compartments. Ligands are classified by size into small molecules, such as neurotransmitters or hormones (e.g., or epinephrine), and macromolecules, such as antibodies or hormones that bind to larger targets like cell surface receptors. Functionally, they are categorized based on their effect on receptor activity: agonists bind and activate the receptor to produce a biological response; antagonists bind without activation, thereby blocking the effects of agonists; and inverse agonists bind to reduce the basal or constitutive activity of the receptor. These classifications underpin the understanding of ligand roles in and .

Endogenous and Exogenous Ligands

Endogenous ligands are molecules naturally produced within an organism by its own metabolic processes, serving as signaling agents that bind to specific receptors to regulate physiological functions. These ligands include hormones such as , which is secreted by pancreatic beta cells and binds to the to facilitate in cells, thereby maintaining metabolic balance. Other examples encompass neurotransmitters like , an endogenous that binds to nicotinic and muscarinic receptors to mediate nerve impulse transmission at synapses and neuromuscular junctions. Second messengers, such as (), act as intracellular endogenous ligands generated in response to external signals, binding to proteins like to amplify signaling cascades involved in processes like response and regulation. In contrast, exogenous ligands originate from external sources and are introduced into the , often interacting with the same receptors as endogenous ligands but with varying degrees of or interference. Prominent examples include pharmaceutical drugs like , which functions as an exogenous ligand by competitively binding to beta-adrenergic receptors, thereby blocking the effects of endogenous catecholamines such as epinephrine and reducing heart rate. Environmental toxins such as 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), a persistent , bind to the (AhR) as an exogenous ligand, activating transcriptional responses that can lead to immunotoxicity and developmental disruptions. Physiologically, endogenous ligands play a central role in sustaining by coordinating essential processes; for instance, insulin modulates blood glucose levels to prevent or , while disruptions in such signaling contribute to disorders like . Exogenous ligands, when therapeutic, can mimic endogenous actions to restore balance—such as managing through receptor blockade—but may also induce toxic effects by overactivating or blocking receptors, as seen with dioxins perturbing and immune function via AhR dysregulation. Overall, these interactions highlight how exogenous compounds can either support or undermine the organism's internal equilibrium depending on dose and context. From an evolutionary perspective, endogenous ligands and their receptors have co-evolved to achieve high specificity in binding, ensuring precise signaling amid diverse molecular environments; this process involves genetic adaptations that refine affinity and selectivity, as evidenced in peptidergic systems where ligand-receptor pairs diversified through and functional shifts. Such co-evolution is particularly pronounced in conserved pathways, like those involving nuclear receptors, where endogenous ligands such as steroid hormones have shaped receptor architectures for optimal physiological control over metabolic and developmental processes. This intertwined development underscores the specificity of endogenous interactions compared to the broader reactivity often observed with exogenous ligands.

Binding Interactions

Affinity and Kinetics

In biochemistry, binding affinity quantifies the strength of the interaction between a and its receptor, typically expressed through the equilibrium KdK_d, defined as Kd=[L][R][LR]K_d = \frac{[L][R]}{[LR]}, where [L] is the concentration of free , [R] is the concentration of free receptor, and [LR] is the concentration of the ligand-receptor complex. A lower KdK_d value indicates higher affinity, reflecting a greater tendency for the and receptor to form a stable complex at equilibrium. The kinetics of ligand binding involve the association rate constant konk_{on}, which governs the forward reaction rate of ligand binding to the receptor, and the dissociation rate constant koffk_{off}, which describes the reverse unbinding process. The relationship between these kinetic parameters and affinity is given by Kd=koffkonK_d = \frac{k_{off}}{k_{on}}, illustrating how a slow dissociation rate or fast association rate contributes to tight binding. For many biomolecular interactions, konk_{on} values range from 10310^3 to 10710^7 M−1^{-1}s−1^{-1}, while koffk_{off} can vary widely, often determining the residence time of the ligand on the receptor. At equilibrium, ligand binding to a single site follows the Langmuir isotherm model for 1:1 interactions, where the fraction of receptor bound, θ\theta, is described by: θ=[L]Kd+[L]\theta = \frac{[L]}{K_d + [L]} This hyperbolic relationship shows that at ligand concentrations much higher than KdK_d, nearly all receptors are occupied (θ≈1\theta \approx 1), while at [L] = KdK_d, half the receptors are bound. Several environmental factors influence binding affinity and kinetics, including temperature, which affects the enthalpic and entropic contributions to binding via the van't Hoff equation; pH, which can alter ionization states of ligand and receptor residues; and ionic strength, which modulates electrostatic interactions through Debye-Hückel screening. For instance, increasing ionic strength often weakens charged interactions, raising KdK_d, while moderate temperature elevations may enhance konk_{on} but accelerate koffk_{off} if binding is entropy-driven. In cases of multi-site binding, cooperativity arises when ligand occupancy at one site affects binding at others, quantified by the Hill coefficient nHn_H in the generalized Hill equation: θ=[L]nHKnH+[L]nH\theta = \frac{[L]^{n_H}}{K^{n_H} + [L]^{n_H}} where nH>1n_H > 1 indicates positive cooperativity (e.g., oxygen binding to ), enhancing affinity at higher ligand concentrations, and nH<1n_H < 1 signifies negative cooperativity. The Hill coefficient provides a phenomenological measure of interaction non-independence without specifying the underlying mechanism. Experimentally, KdK_d is derived from titration curves by plotting the observed signal (proportional to [LR]) against [L] and fitting to the Langmuir equation; the ligand concentration at half-maximal binding equals KdK_d. For kinetic analysis, time-resolved measurements during association and dissociation phases yield konk_{on} and koffk_{off} via exponential fitting, from which KdK_d is confirmed as their ratio. These parameters underpin ligand design in pharmacology, where high-affinity binders with suitable kinetics optimize therapeutic potency.

Potency and Efficacy

In pharmacology, potency refers to the concentration of a ligand required to produce a specific biological effect, typically quantified by the half-maximal effective concentration (EC50) for agonists, which is the ligand concentration eliciting 50% of the maximum response. For antagonists or inhibitors, potency is often measured by the half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50), the concentration reducing the response by 50%. A lower EC50 or IC50 indicates higher potency, reflecting the ligand's efficiency in activating or blocking the target receptor, though potency does not necessarily correlate with the magnitude of the effect. Efficacy, in contrast, describes the maximum biological response a ligand can induce upon receptor activation, denoted as the maximum effect (Emax). Full agonists achieve an Emax equivalent to the system's inherent capacity, while partial agonists produce a submaximal Emax even at saturating concentrations, due to their limited ability to stabilize the active receptor conformation. Antagonists exhibit zero efficacy, as they bind without eliciting a response. These distinctions arise from the ligand's intrinsic activity in transducing the binding event into downstream signaling. Dose-response relationships for ligands are typically sigmoidal when plotted on a semi-logarithmic scale, capturing the transition from minimal to maximal effects as ligand concentration increases. This shape is modeled by the Hill equation, which accounts for and is expressed as: E=Emax⁡[L]nEC50n+[L]nE = E_{\max} \frac{[L]^n}{EC_{50}^n + [L]^n} where EE is the response, [L][L] is the ligand concentration, nn is the Hill coefficient indicating (n > 1 for positive ), and EC50 defines potency. Originally derived by A.V. Hill in 1910 to describe oxygen binding to , the equation has become foundational for quantifying ligand effects in receptor . Antagonists modulate these curves differently based on their mechanism: competitive antagonists bind reversibly to the same site as , shifting the dose-response curve rightward by increasing the apparent EC50 without altering Emax, allowing higher agonist concentrations to overcome the block. Non-competitive antagonists, however, bind to a distinct site or irreversibly, reducing Emax by limiting the receptor's response capacity, regardless of agonist concentration. In clinical contexts, high ligand potency enables administration of lower doses to achieve therapeutic effects, minimizing off-target risks and improving patient compliance. , however, sets the therapeutic ceiling, determining whether a ligand can fully address the disease ; partial agonists may suffice for conditions requiring moderated responses, such as in treatments, but fail where full activation is needed. These metrics guide selection and dosing in development, balancing efficacy against potential adverse events.

Specificity and Design

Selective vs. Non-Selective Ligands

In biochemistry, selective ligands are molecules that bind preferentially to a specific target, such as a receptor or , over closely related homologs, minimizing interactions with off-target sites. This selectivity arises from optimized interactions that exploit subtle differences in target structures, enabling precise modulation of biological pathways. In contrast, non-selective ligands interact with multiple targets, often leading to polypharmacology where unintended bindings occur, which can amplify therapeutic effects but also introduce risks like adverse reactions. A classic example of a selective ligand is atenolol, a beta-blocker that preferentially antagonizes β1-adrenergic receptors in cardiac tissue over β2-adrenergic receptors in bronchial , thereby reducing cardiovascular effects while limiting respiratory side effects. Conversely, aspirin functions as a non-selective ligand by irreversibly inhibiting both cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) and (COX-2) enzymes, which underlies its and benefits but contributes to gastrointestinal side effects through COX-1 suppression in the . These examples illustrate how selectivity profiles influence clinical outcomes, with non-selective binding sometimes providing broad-spectrum activity at the cost of specificity. Factors governing ligand selectivity include structural complementarity between the ligand and target binding pocket, where differences in shape, electrostatic properties, and flexibility allow for discriminatory binding. For instance, variations in pocket size or charge distribution can favor one target while repelling others, though off-target binding remains a challenge in polypharmacology due to conserved motifs across protein families, potentially leading to toxicity or reduced efficacy. Design strategies to enhance selectivity often rely on structure-activity relationship (SAR) studies, which systematically modify ligand structures to strengthen favorable interactions (positive design) or weaken undesired ones (negative design), such as introducing repulsive groups to deter non-target binding. Therapeutically, selective ligands offer advantages by reducing off-target effects and side effects, improving safety profiles in targeted therapies like or cardiovascular treatments. However, non-selective ligands can be advantageous in scenarios requiring multi-target engagement, such as broad-spectrum analgesics like certain that activate multiple opioid receptors to achieve comprehensive pain relief, though this often necessitates careful dosing to manage associated risks like respiratory depression. Privileged scaffolds may serve as starting points in SAR efforts to fine-tune such selectivity.

Privileged Scaffolds

Privileged scaffolds refer to specific rigid molecular frameworks, often heterocyclic or fused-ring systems, that demonstrate high binding affinity to multiple diverse biological targets, enabling their use as versatile templates in ligand design. These structures are characterized by their ability to interact with unrelated receptor families through common pharmacophoric elements, facilitating polypharmacology or selective modulation depending on substituents. The concept of privileged scaffolds was first introduced by Evans et al. in during studies on cholecystokinin (CCK) antagonists, where they identified certain structural motifs as efficient starting points for due to their recurrent presence in bioactive molecules across different targets. This idea gained traction in for streamlining lead identification by leveraging scaffolds that inherently mimic key binding interactions, such as those in natural substrates. The underlying mechanism involves the scaffold's conformational rigidity, which positions functional groups to engage conserved binding pockets, combined with adaptability through peripheral modifications that fine-tune specificity without altering the core framework. Prominent examples include the core, which binds to GABA_A receptors as well as CCK receptors, serving as a template for anxiolytics and beyond. The scaffold interacts with serotonin receptors (e.g., 5-HT subtypes) and is also exploited in inhibitors, owing to its planar aromatic system that mimics residues in protein interfaces. derivatives act as potent inhibitors, targeting enzymes like EGFR and VEGFR through hydrogen bonding and π-stacking interactions facilitated by the fused ring system. Similarly, the motif appears in inhibitors, such as those for , where the twisted aryl rings occupy hydrophobic subsites effectively. In , privileged scaffolds accelerate lead optimization by providing a proven foundation that reduces the time and resources needed for hit-to-lead progression, often yielding compounds with improved potency and reduced off-target effects through targeted derivatization. This approach has been instrumental in developing therapeutics across therapeutic areas, emphasizing efficiency in exploring chemical space around biologically validated cores.

Structural Variations

Hydrophobic Ligands

Hydrophobic ligands in biochemistry are characterized as lipophilic molecules with low water solubility, enabling them to interact preferentially with non-polar environments within biological systems. These ligands typically include hormones such as and progesterone, as well as retinoids like and , which possess hydrophobic backbones that facilitate their across lipid bilayers. Their lipophilicity arises from non-polar moieties, such as fused ring structures in s or conjugated double bonds in retinoids, which minimize interactions with aqueous solvents and promote association with hydrophobic regions. In terms of binding modes, hydrophobic ligands partition into non-polar pockets of target receptors, particularly nuclear receptors, where they form stabilizing interactions like van der Waals contacts, alkyl chain packing, and pi-stacking with aromatic residues. For instance, binds within the ligand-binding domain of the , engaging a predominantly hydrophobic cavity lined by residues such as Phe404 and Leu525, supplemented by hydrogen bonds at the pocket's polar extremities. Similarly, interacts with retinoic acid receptors through hydrophobic enclosure, which repositions 12 to activate coactivator . These modes ensure high specificity while leveraging the entropic gain from desolvation of non-polar surfaces. Due to their poor aqueous solubility, hydrophobic ligands require carrier proteins for transport and delivery in the bloodstream, with serving as a primary vehicle that binds them at multiple hydrophobic sites to prevent aggregation and enhance circulation stability. This binding allows ligands like steroid hormones to cross endothelial barriers and readily permeate cell membranes via passive diffusion, bypassing the need for transporters in many cases. Biologically, these ligands play key roles in regulating gene transcription; for example, bind thyroid hormone receptors to modulate and activate promoters of metabolic genes such as those involved in expression. Additionally, certain hydrophobic signaling molecules participate in within lipid rafts, where membrane partitioning concentrates receptors and effectors to amplify pathways like those in G-protein coupled signaling. A major challenge in utilizing hydrophobic ligands for therapeutic purposes is their inherent poor , which often results in low and necessitates advanced formulation strategies such as emulsions or encapsulation to improve dissolution and systemic delivery. This insolubility can lead to precipitation in aqueous media, complicating intravenous administration and requiring excipients like cyclodextrins to enhance apparent without altering the ligand's core interactions. Despite these hurdles, such properties underpin their efficacy in targeting intracellular receptors, as seen in hormone replacement therapies.

Bivalent and Multivalent Ligands

Bivalent ligands are molecules featuring two pharmacophores connected by a flexible spacer, enabling them to bind simultaneously to two distinct sites on a target, such as receptor dimers or clusters, thereby enhancing selectivity and potency compared to monovalent counterparts. In biochemistry, these ligands exploit receptor oligomerization, as seen in dimeric opioids designed to bridge clusters, where the spacer allows the pharmacophores to engage adjacent receptor protomers. For instance, MDAN-21, a bivalent ligand with a spacer longer than 22 Å, targets -delta opioid receptor (DOR) heterodimers, promoting receptor clustering and reducing tolerance and dependence in applications. Multivalent ligands extend this concept to multiple binding sites, often involving polydentate structures where numerous weak individual interactions collectively yield high overall binding strength through cooperative effects. A classic example is , which bind multivalently to glycan arrays on cell surfaces, such as in the case of self-assembling lectin nano-block oligomers that enhance to glycans via clustered binding motifs. This polydesmic binding sums low-affinity interactions into robust complexes, facilitating processes like and pathogen recognition. The effect in these ligands arises from the multiplicative enhancement of binding strength as valency increases, where the overall effective affinity grows exponentially due to reduced off-rates and increased rebinding probabilities when multiple pharmacophores engage simultaneously. Conceptually, represents the of individual affinities, amplified by the proximity enforced by spacers or scaffolds, leading to gains of up to several orders of magnitude in functional affinity for bivalent systems and even greater for higher valencies. This effect is particularly pronounced in heterobivalent ligands, where complementary pharmacophores stabilize receptor interactions, as observed in up to 27-fold affinity increases for nanobody-based binders. Design principles for bivalent and multivalent ligands emphasize optimizing spacer length and flexibility to tune and mimic the seen in polydentate coordination compounds, where multidentate binding reduces loss and stabilizes complexes. For example, spacers of approximately 25 Å in bivalent ligands (e.g., dOTK2–C8) enable precise fitting into dimer interfaces, yielding superpotent values as low as 0.8 pM by promoting engagement of both protomers. Shorter or longer spacers disrupt this alignment, diminishing potency, while flexibility allows conformational adaptation without steric hindrance. Applications of these ligands include conjugates for targeted delivery, where multivalency improves specificity and internalization efficiency in therapeutics. Multivalent protein- conjugates, such as tetravalent anti-EGFR antibody- conjugates loaded with (MMAE), leverage receptor clustering to enhance and lysosomal release in cancer cells, reducing off-target . Additionally, multivalent scaffolds in facilitate studies by mimicking natural glycan-lectin interactions, enabling precise control over cellular processes like migration and signaling.

Experimental Approaches

Biophysical Methods

Biophysical methods provide direct, label-free or minimally invasive experimental approaches to quantify binding to biomolecules, such as proteins, by exploiting changes in physical properties like heat, , , or nuclear spin. These techniques enable the determination of key binding parameters, including dissociation constants (Kd), association and dissociation rate constants (kon and koff), and thermodynamic profiles, which inform the strength and nature of interactions. Widely adopted in biochemistry, they complement structural and functional studies by offering real-time or equilibrium data under solution conditions mimicking physiological environments. Isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) is a premier technique for characterizing the of -macromolecule interactions in solution. It involves injecting a solution into a sample cell containing the and measuring the absorbed or released upon binding, which is integrated to yield binding isotherms. From these, ITC derives the equilibrium dissociation constant (Kd), binding (n), and thermodynamic parameters such as change (ΔH) and change (ΔS), with (ΔG) calculated via ΔG = -RT ln(Ka), where Ka is the association constant. This method is particularly valuable for distinguishing enthalpic from entropic contributions, revealing whether binding is driven by hydrogen bonding, van der Waals forces, or hydrophobic effects; for instance, in studying small-molecule s binding to enzymes, ITC has quantified affinities in the micromolar to nanomolar range with high precision. Seminal applications include its use in dissecting protein- energetics, as demonstrated in early protocols for release-based ITC experiments that improved accuracy for weak interactions. Surface plasmon resonance (SPR) enables real-time monitoring of binding kinetics without requiring fluorescent or radioactive labels. In SPR, one binding partner (typically the ) is immobilized on a sensor chip coated with a thin film, and the is flowed over it; binding alters the near the surface, causing a shift in the resonance angle of reflected light that is detected as a sensorgram. of the association and dissociation phases provides kon and koff, from which Kd = koff/kon is obtained, often achieving sub-nanomolar sensitivity for high-affinity interactions. This optical method excels in kinetic profiling, such as determining the rapid on-rates of ligands to receptors, and has been instrumental in validating binding specificity in pipelines. For proteins, specialized SPR setups with bilayers on the chip have mapped interactions while preserving native-like environments. Fluorescence-based methods, including (FRET) and , offer sensitive detection of ligand-induced conformational changes or proximity effects in binding events. In FRET, energy transfer between a donor on the and an acceptor on the ligand occurs only when they are within 1-10 nm, allowing quantification of binding affinities and dynamics; for example, ligand binding to G protein-coupled receptors has been tracked via decreased FRET efficiency upon complex formation. measures the rotational mobility of a fluorescent ligand, which decreases upon binding to a larger due to increased , enabling homogeneous assays for Kd determination in the nanomolar range without separation steps. Ligand-induced , where binding alters the fluorophore's environment to reduce emission intensity, provides a complementary readout, as seen in studies of small-molecule inhibitors binding to fluorescently labeled proteins. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, particularly through perturbation (CSP), maps ligand binding sites by detecting changes in atomic environments. Upon ligand addition, resonances of nuclei near the binding interface shift due to altered electronic shielding, allowing identification of affected residues when overlaid on the protein's ; this technique has pinpointed cryptic pockets in proteins like kinases for targeted ligand design. CSP experiments typically use ¹H-¹⁵N HSQC spectra of isotopically labeled proteins titrated with ligand, quantifying perturbations to estimate Kd for weak-to-moderate binders (micromolar range) and distinguishing direct from allosteric effects. High-resolution mapping via CSP has been crucial for validating ligand poses in solution, complementing crystallographic data. Despite their strengths, these methods have practical limitations that influence experimental design. ITC demands relatively large sample volumes (0.2-2 mL) and concentrations (10-500 μM), making it less suitable for scarce proteins or precious ligands. SPR requires immobilization of one partner, which can introduce artifacts from surface effects or altered binding orientation, potentially skewing kinetics for multimeric or aggregation-prone biomolecules. Fluorescence methods may suffer from nonspecific labeling or environmental quenching, while NMR is limited to smaller proteins (<50 kDa) due to spectral overlap and requires isotopic enrichment.

Computational Methods

Computational methods play a crucial role in predicting and analyzing ligand-receptor interactions by simulating atomic-level behaviors and estimating binding affinities without physical experimentation. These approaches enable the exploration of vast chemical spaces, identification of potential ligands, and optimization of lead compounds in drug discovery. Key techniques include molecular docking, molecular dynamics simulations, free energy calculations, and virtual screening, which collectively provide insights into binding poses, stability, and energetics. Recent integrations of artificial intelligence and machine learning have further enhanced accuracy and efficiency, particularly in structure prediction. Molecular docking algorithms predict the preferred orientation of a within a receptor's and estimate binding affinities using scoring functions that account for intermolecular forces such as van der Waals interactions and . AutoDock Vina, a widely adopted tool, employs a method to generate multiple binding poses rapidly, achieving up to two orders of magnitude speed improvements over its predecessor while maintaining high accuracy in pose for diverse protein- complexes. These scoring functions typically combine empirical terms for hydrogen bonding, desolvation penalties, and torsional penalties to rank potential binders, facilitating the prioritization of candidates for synthesis and testing. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations extend docking by modeling the dynamic evolution of ligand-receptor complexes over time, capturing conformational flexibility, solvent effects, and transient interactions that static methods overlook. Popular software packages like and utilize classical force fields—such as CHARMM or OPLS—to propagate atomic trajectories under Newtonian mechanics, often simulating nanosecond to microsecond timescales on modern hardware. In ligand studies, MD reveals mechanisms like induced fit binding or allosteric effects, with applications in assessing ligand residence times and stability in physiological environments. These simulations are particularly valuable for refining docked poses and exploring contributions to binding. Free energy calculations provide quantitative estimates of binding free energies (ΔG_binding) to rank s more reliably than docking scores alone. (FEP) is a rigorous thermodynamic method that computes ΔG differences by gradually transforming one state into another through a series of non-physical alchemical intermediates, leveraging to average over ensemble configurations. Implemented in tools like Schrödinger's FEP+ or open-source frameworks, FEP achieves root-mean-square errors of 1-2 kcal/mol against experimental affinities for congeneric series, making it indispensable for lead optimization where precise potency predictions guide iterations. Virtual screening leverages high-throughput docking to evaluate millions of compounds from large databases against a target receptor, accelerating lead identification by filtering for high-affinity hits. This process typically involves rigid-body docking followed by rescoring with more sophisticated functions, reducing computational cost while enriching for true positives; for instance, structure-based virtual screening has successfully identified novel inhibitors for targets like kinases and GPCRs from libraries exceeding 10^6 molecules. Integration with modeling further refines hits by enforcing key interaction motifs. Advances since the 2020s have incorporated AI and to augment traditional methods, notably through 3's (2024) deep learning-based prediction of protein-ligand complex structures, which has generated models enabling direct analysis of binding interactions for previously intractable targets. models trained on docking datasets now refine scoring functions, improving pose accuracy by 10-20% and enabling de novo ligand design via generative adversarial networks. These hybrid approaches complement simulations by predicting ligand-induced conformational changes and accelerating pipelines. Such predictions are routinely validated against biophysical data to ensure reliability in guiding experimental efforts.

References

  1. https://doi.org/10.1351/goldbook.L03518
  2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2010.12.3699
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3030248/
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7714259/
  5. https://www.news-medical.net/life-sciences/Ligands-An-Overview.aspx
  6. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/cell-communication-and-cell-cycle/signal-transduction/a/signal-perception
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3010294/
  8. https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(18)52781-2/fulltext
  9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9923/
  10. https://www.rcsb.org/docs/exploring-a-3d-structure/ligands
  11. https://open.lib.umn.edu/pharmacology/chapter/two-main-classes-of-receptor-ligands-in-pharmacology-agonists-antagonists/
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6165953/
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3003339/
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2878077/
  15. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557825/
  16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK535431/
  17. https://www.omicsonline.org/pdfdownload.php?download=open-access-pdfs/ligand-binding-a-fundamental-mechanism-in-biochemistry.pdf&aid=135551
  18. https://www.guidetopharmacology.org/GRAC/LigandDisplayForward?ligandId=564
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6897361/
  20. https://www.longdom.org/open-access/the-role-of-cellular-ligands-and-their-significance-in-maintaining-cellular-balance-105272.html
  21. https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6304/2/1/17
  22. https://hal.science/hal-00532041v1/document
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0070215317300170
  24. https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/20/13/3292
  25. https://elifesciences.org/articles/57264
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11471161/
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7060363/
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4137368/
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3699289/
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5355565/
  31. https://www.guidetopharmacology.org/pdfs/termsAndSymbols.pdf
  32. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1472-8206.2008.00633.x
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211383522000521
  34. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jm2010332
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/drug-selectivity
  36. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK539844/
  37. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK549795/
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10243259/
  39. https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.13809
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2908274/
  41. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/anie.201702816
  42. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8247/14/11/1164
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10892255/
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4765733/
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1367593110000232
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2807637/
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7762034/
  48. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285568/
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3677810/
  50. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jm051256o
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11376212/
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3207675/
  53. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32189308/
  54. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6616/
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8112205/
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4629443/
  57. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844023046960
  58. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-86198-y
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7856001/
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3972655/
  61. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2023/cs/d2cs00736c
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8775495/
  63. https://www.cell.com/biophysj/fulltext/S0006-3495%2819%2933119-4
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3623049/
  65. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b00564
  66. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23116010/
  67. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0734975023001209
  68. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/bm500921q
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3230191/
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005273613001466
  71. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03245784
  72. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006349599774138
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8489108/
  74. https://portlandpress.com/biochemist/article/45/1/18/232564/A-beginner-s-guide-to-surface-plasmon-resonance
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2981669/
  76. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167488920302883
  77. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ac502605f
  78. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23962882/
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3635485/
  80. https://www.labmanager.com/surface-plasmon-resonance-spr-vs-isothermal-titration-calorimetry-itc-analyzing-molecular-interactions-33668
  81. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07487-w
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.