Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106.
Center for Bioengineering, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Aug 11;117(32):19136-19140. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2006254117. Epub 2020 Jul 29.
Cooperativity enhances the responsiveness of biomolecular receptors to small changes in the concentration of their target ligand, albeit with a concomitant reduction in affinity. The binding midpoint of a two-site receptor with a Hill coefficient of 1.9, for example, must be at least 19 times higher than the dissociation constant of the higher affinity of its two binding sites. This trade-off can be overcome, however, by the extra binding energy provided by the addition of more binding sites, which can be used to achieve highly cooperative receptors that still retain high affinity. Exploring this experimentally, we have employed an "intrinsic disorder" mechanism to design two cooperative, three-binding-site receptors starting from a single-site-and thus noncooperative-doxorubicin-binding aptamer. The first receptor follows a binding energy landscape that partitions the energy provided by the additional binding event to favor affinity, achieving a Hill coefficient of 1.9 but affinity within a factor of 2 of the parent aptamer. The binding energy landscape of the second receptor, in contrast, partitions more of this energy toward cooperativity, achieving a Hill coefficient of 2.3, but at the cost of 4-fold poorer affinity than that of the parent aptamer. The switch between these two behaviors is driven primarily by the affinity of the receptors' second binding event, which serves as an allosteric "gatekeeper" defining the extent to which the system is weighted toward higher cooperativity or higher affinity.
协同作用增强了生物分子受体对其靶配体浓度微小变化的响应能力,尽管亲和力随之降低。例如,具有 1.9 希尔系数的双位点受体的结合中点必须比其两个结合位点中较高亲和力的离解常数至少高 19 倍。然而,通过增加更多的结合位点提供的额外结合能可以克服这种权衡,这可以用来实现仍然保留高亲和力的高度协同受体。为了在实验中探索这一点,我们采用了“固有无序”机制,从单个位点(因此是非协同的)阿霉素结合适体开始设计两个协同的、三结合位点受体。第一个受体遵循一个结合能景观,该景观将附加结合事件提供的能量分配给亲和力,从而实现 1.9 的希尔系数,但亲和力与亲本适体的亲和力相差 2 倍。相比之下,第二个受体的结合能景观将更多的能量分配给协同作用,从而实现 2.3 的希尔系数,但代价是亲和力比亲本适体差 4 倍。这两种行为之间的转换主要由受体的第二个结合事件的亲和力驱动,该亲和力充当变构“门控”,定义系统加权向更高协同性或更高亲和力的程度。