BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Because the in vivo effectiveness of ligands may also be determined by the rate by which they dissociate from their target receptors, drug candidates are being increasingly screened for this kinetic property. The dissociation rate of unlabelled ligand-receptor complexes can be estimated indirectly from their ability to slow the association of subsequently added radioligand molecules. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: We used the 'two-step competition' binding approach consisting of pre-incubating the receptor preparation with a wide range of ligand concentrations, washing off free ligand molecules, adding radioligand and monitoring its receptor binding after a fixed time. Based on the rationale that binding of both ligands is mutually exclusive and that they bind according to the law of mass action to a single class of sites, the unlabelled ligand's dissociation rate can be estimated from the upward shift that the competition curve experiences after washing. KEY RESULTS: The relevance of the 'two-step competition' approach was explored by computer simulations and by comparing the dissociation behaviour of unlabelled D(2) dopamine and CB(1) cannabinoid receptor antagonists in this and alternative approaches. Besides providing satisfactory estimations of dissociation rates, the method also detects the ability of the unlabelled ligand molecules to be released from 'sinks' such as the cell membrane. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: As the 'two-step competition' requires rapid intermediate washing steps and needs radioligand binding to be measured at only one time point, this approach is particularly suited for binding studies on intact plated cells. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed section on Analytical Receptor Pharmacology in Drug Discovery. To view the other articles in this section visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bph.2010.161.issue-6.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Because the in vivo effectiveness of ligands may also be determined by the rate by which they dissociate from their target receptors, drug candidates are being increasingly screened for this kinetic property. The dissociation rate of unlabelled ligand-receptor complexes can be estimated indirectly from their ability to slow the association of subsequently added radioligand molecules. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: We used the 'two-step competition' binding approach consisting of pre-incubating the receptor preparation with a wide range of ligand concentrations, washing off free ligand molecules, adding radioligand and monitoring its receptor binding after a fixed time. Based on the rationale that binding of both ligands is mutually exclusive and that they bind according to the law of mass action to a single class of sites, the unlabelled ligand's dissociation rate can be estimated from the upward shift that the competition curve experiences after washing. KEY RESULTS: The relevance of the 'two-step competition' approach was explored by computer simulations and by comparing the dissociation behaviour of unlabelled D(2) dopamine and CB(1) cannabinoid receptor antagonists in this and alternative approaches. Besides providing satisfactory estimations of dissociation rates, the method also detects the ability of the unlabelled ligand molecules to be released from 'sinks' such as the cell membrane. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: As the 'two-step competition' requires rapid intermediate washing steps and needs radioligand binding to be measured at only one time point, this approach is particularly suited for binding studies on intact plated cells. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed section on Analytical Receptor Pharmacology in Drug Discovery. To view the other articles in this section visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bph.2010.161.issue-6.
Authors: Ann Packeu; Jean-Paul De Backer; Isabelle Van Liefde; Patrick M L Vanderheyden; Georges Vauquelin Journal: Biochem Pharmacol Date: 2008-03-14 Impact factor: 5.858
Authors: Siobhan Malany; Lisa M Hernandez; William F Smith; Paul D Crowe; Sam R J Hoare Journal: J Recept Signal Transduct Res Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.092
Authors: Anna H C Vlot; Wilhelmus E A de Witte; Meindert Danhof; Piet H van der Graaf; Gerard J P van Westen; Elizabeth C M de Lange Journal: AAPS J Date: 2017-12-04 Impact factor: 4.009
Authors: Georges Vauquelin; Sophie Bostoen; Patrick Vanderheyden; Philip Seeman Journal: Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 3.000
Authors: Markus Zeilinger; Florian Pichler; Lukas Nics; Wolfgang Wadsak; Helmut Spreitzer; Marcus Hacker; Markus Mitterhauser Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2017-03-07 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Lizi Xia; Henk de Vries; Eelke B Lenselink; Julien Louvel; Michael J Waring; Leifeng Cheng; Sara Pahlén; Maria J Petersson; Peter Schell; Roine I Olsson; Laura H Heitman; Robert J Sheppard; Adriaan P IJzerman Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Richard Ågren; Hugo Zeberg; Tomasz Maciej Stępniewski; R Benjamin Free; Sean W Reilly; Robert R Luedtke; Peter Århem; Francisco Ciruela; David R Sibley; Robert H Mach; Jana Selent; Johanna Nilsson; Kristoffer Sahlholm Journal: ACS Chem Neurosci Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 4.418