Breslauer K J, Remeta D P, Chou W Y, Ferrante R, Curry J, Zaunczkowski D, Snyder J G, Marky L A
Department of Chemistry, Rutgers State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick 08903.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1987 Dec;84(24):8922-6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.84.24.8922.
We present a comparative study of calorimetrically derived thermodynamic profiles for the binding of a series of drugs with selected DNA host duplexes. We use these data to demonstrate that comparisons between complete thermodynamic profiles (delta G zero, delta H zero, delta S zero, delta Cp) are required before drug binding can be used as a probe of DNA conformation, since enthalpy-entropy compensations can cause two drug-DNA binding events to exhibit similar binding free energies (delta G zero) despite being driven by entirely different thermodynamic forces (delta H zero, delta S zero). In this work, we employ a combination of spectroscopic and calorimetric techniques to characterize thermodynamically the DNA binding of netropsin and distamycin (two minor groove-directed ligands), ethidium (an intercalator), and daunomycin (a combined intercalator/groove binder). Our free energy data (delta G zero) show that each drug exhibits similar binding affinities at 25 degrees C for the alternating copolymer duplex poly[d(A-T)].poly[d(A-T)] and for the homopolymer duplex poly(dA).poly(dT). However, our calorimetric measurements reveal that the nature of the thermodynamic forces (delta H zero, delta S zero) that drive drug binding to these two host duplexes at 25 degrees C are entirely different, despite similar binding free energies (delta G zero) and similar salt dependencies (lnK/ln[Na+]). Specifically, the 25 degrees C binding of all four drugs to the alternating copolymer poly[d(A-T)].poly[d(A-T)] is overwhelmingly enthalpy driven, whereas the corresponding binding of each drug to the homopolymer duplex poly(dA).poly(dT) is overwhelmingly entropy driven. Thus, the similar binding free energies (delta G zero) we measure for complexation of each drug with poly[d(A-T)].poly[d(A-T)] and poly(dA).poly(dT) result from compensating changes in the enthalpy and entropy terms. Comparison with the thermodynamic profiles for the complexation of these drug molecules to other DNA host duplexes at 25 degrees C reveals that the binding of each is strongly enthalpy driven, except when the poly(dA).poly(dT) homopolymer serves as the host duplex. This comparison allows us to conclude that poly[d(A-T)].poly[d(A-T)] behaves thermodynamically as the more "normal" host duplex toward drug binding, whereas the entropy-driven binding to the poly(dA).poly(dT) duplex represents "aberrant" behavior. Furthermore, since each of the four drugs exhibits different modes of DNA binding, we conclude that the observed entropy-driven behavior for binding to poly(dA).poly(dT) reflects an intrinsic property of the homopolymer duplex that is perturbed in a common manner upon ligation rather than a common property of all four binding ligands. To rationalize the large positive entropy changes that drive drug complexation with poly(dA).poly(dT) duplex, we propose a model that emphasizes binding-induced perturbations of the more highly hydrated, altered B conformation of the homopolymer. Our results suggest that an aberrant thermodynamic binding profile may reflect an unusual DNA conformation in the host duplex. However, before such a conclusion can be reached, complete thermodynamic binding profiles must be examined, since enthalpy-entropy compensations can cause two binding events to exhibit similar binding constants even when they are driven by very different thermodynamic forces.
我们展示了一项关于一系列药物与选定的DNA宿主双链体结合的量热法推导热力学曲线的比较研究。我们利用这些数据证明,在将药物结合用作DNA构象的探针之前,需要对完整的热力学曲线(ΔG⁰、ΔH⁰、ΔS⁰、ΔCp)进行比较,因为焓-熵补偿可能导致两个药物-DNA结合事件表现出相似的结合自由能(ΔG⁰),尽管它们是由完全不同的热力学力(ΔH⁰、ΔS⁰)驱动的。在这项工作中,我们采用光谱和量热技术相结合的方法,从热力学角度表征了纺锤菌素和偏端霉素(两种小沟定向配体)、溴化乙锭(一种嵌入剂)和柔红霉素(一种嵌入/沟结合剂组合)与DNA的结合。我们的自由能数据(ΔG⁰)表明,每种药物在25℃时对交替共聚物双链体聚[d(A-T)]·聚[d(A-T)]和均聚物双链体聚(dA)·聚(dT)表现出相似的结合亲和力。然而,我们的量热测量结果表明,尽管结合自由能(ΔG⁰)相似且盐依赖性(lnK/ln[Na⁺])相似,但在25℃时驱动药物与这两种宿主双链体结合的热力学力(ΔH⁰、ΔS⁰)的性质却完全不同。具体而言,所有四种药物在25℃时与交替共聚物聚[d(A-T)]·聚[d(A-T)]的结合主要由焓驱动,而每种药物与均聚物双链体聚(dA)·聚(dT)的相应结合则主要由熵驱动。因此,我们测量到的每种药物与聚[d(A-T)]·聚[d(A-T)]和聚(dA)·聚(dT)络合时相似的结合自由能(ΔG⁰)是由焓和熵项的补偿性变化导致的。与这些药物分子在25℃时与其他DNA宿主双链体络合的热力学曲线相比,发现每种药物的结合主要由焓驱动,除非聚(dA)·聚(dT)均聚物作为宿主双链体。这种比较使我们得出结论,聚[d(A-T)]·聚[d(A-T)]在热力学上对药物结合表现为更“正常”的宿主双链体,而与聚(dA)·聚(dT)双链体的熵驱动结合代表“异常”行为。此外,由于四种药物中的每一种都表现出不同的DNA结合模式,我们得出结论,观察到的与聚(dA)·聚(dT)结合的熵驱动行为反映了均聚物双链体的一种内在特性,这种特性在连接时以一种共同的方式受到扰动,而不是所有四种结合配体的共同特性。为了解释驱动药物与聚(dA)·聚(dT)双链体络合的大的正熵变化,我们提出了一个模型,该模型强调结合诱导的对均聚物更高水合度、改变的B构象的扰动。我们的结果表明异常的热力学结合曲线可能反映了宿主双链体中不寻常的DNA构象。然而,在得出这样的结论之前,必须检查完整的热力学结合曲线,因为焓-熵补偿可能导致两个结合事件表现出相似的结合常数,即使它们是由非常不同的热力学力驱动的。