Pharmaceutical Medicine

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 23–34

Applications of Binding Kinetics to Drug Discovery

Translation of Binding Mechanisms to Clinically Differentiated Therapeutic Responses
Current Opinion

Abstract

The therapeutic response of a drug is initiated by binding to a physiological target. The efficacy, tolerability and therapeutic index of the drug will be influenced by how efficiently the binding is coupled to physiology. The influence of coupling efficiency on dose-response relationships is determined by drug binding kinetics and drug-induced conformational changes to the physiological target. Binding kinetics determine the affinity of a drug to its target and can impact the coupling efficiency of the drug by affecting the state of equilibrium. The end result may be greater efficacy (exemplified by the angiotensin II receptor 1 antagonists), longer duration of response (muscarinic receptor antagonists), differentiation of therapeutic indications (NSAIDs and ion channel antagonists) and/or greater tolerability (atypical antipsychotics, N-methyl-D-aspartate [NMDA] receptor antagonists, NSAIDs and selective estrogen receptor modulators).

The role of binding kinetics and mechanism in shaping the therapeutic utility of a drug is not captured in the current definition of a successful drug target. This article proposes that a mechanistic definition of a drug target that includes both the macromolecular protein and binding mechanism will help capture the value of discovering a binding mechanism that effectively translates drug binding to a therapeutically useful response. These examples demonstrate that binding kinetics and mechanisms help shape the clinical outcomes that are important to patients and clinicians, namely efficacy, safety, duration of action and therapeutic differentiation.

References

  1. 1.
    Ehrlich P. Chemotherapeutics: scientific principles, methods and results. Lancet 1915; 182: 445–51Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Swinney DC. Biochemical mechanisms of drug action: what does it take for success? Nature Rev Drug Discov 2004; 3: 801–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Copeland RA, Pompliano DL, Meek TD. Drug-target residence time and its implications for lead optimization. Nature Rev Drug Discov 2006; 5: 7309Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Imming P, Sinning C, Meyer A. Drugs, their targets and the nature and number of drug targets. Nature Rev Drug Discov 2006; 5: 821–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Robertson JG. Mechanistic basis of enzyme-target drugs. Biochemistry 2005; 44: 5561–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Swinney DC. Biochemical mechanisms of new molecular entities (NMEs) approved by United States FDA during 2001–2004: mechanisms leading to optimal efficacy and safety. Curr Topics Med Chem 2006; 6: 461–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rigby JW, Gardiner DG, Greengrass PM, et al. Amlodipine: interaction with calcium channel binding sites. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1988; 12 Suppl. 6: S144Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hale JJ, Mills SG, MacCross M, et al. Structural optimization affording 2-(R)-(1-(R)-3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl)phenylethoxy)-3-(S)-(4-fluoro)phenyl-4-(3-oxo-1,2,4,-triazol-5-yl)methylmorpholine, a potent, orally active, long-acting morpholine acetal human NK-1 receptor antagonist. J Med Chem 1998; 41: 4607–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boas RA, Villiger JW. Clinical actions of fentanyl and buprenorphine: the significance of receptor binding. Br J Anaesth 1985; 57: 192–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fierens F, Vanderheyden PML, De Backer J-P, et al. Binding of the antagonist [3H]candesartan to angiotensin II AT1 receptor-transfected Chinese hamster ovary cells. Eur J Pharmacol 1999; 367: 413–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Inge D, Miele DW, Emmanuel G, et al. Binding kinetics of darunavir to HIV-1 protease explain the potent antiviral activity and high genetic barrier. J Virol. In pressGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anthes JC, Gilchrest H, Richard C, et al. Biochemical characterization of desloratadine, a potent antagonist of the human histamine H1 receptor. Eur J Pharmacol 2002; 449: 229–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wood ER, Truesdale AT, McDonald OB, et al. A unique structure for epidermal growth factor receptor bound to GW572016 (Lapatinib): relationship between protein conformation, inhibitor off-rate, and receptor activity in tumor cells. Cancer Res 2004; 64: 6652–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Napier C, Sale H, Mosley M, et al. Molecular cloning and radioligand binding characterization of the chemokine receptor CCR5 from rhesus macaque and human. Biochem Pharmacol 2005; 31: 163–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Le MT, Pugsley MK, Vaugeulin G, et al. Molecular characterization of the interactions between olmesartan and telmisartan and the human angiotensin II AT1 receptor. Br J Pharmacol 2007; 151: 952–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kati WM, Montgomery D, Carrick R, et al. In vitro characterization of A-315675, a highly potent inhibitor of A and B strain influenza virus replication. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002; 46: 1014–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Disse B, Reichl R, Speck G, et al. Ba679BR, A new long-acting antimuscarinic bronchodilator: predicted and clinical effects. Life Sci 1993; 52: 537–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Copeland RA. Evaluation of enzyme inhibitors in drug discovery: a guide for medicinal chemists and pharmacologists. New York: Wiley, 2005Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Riederer P, Lachenmayer L, Laux G. Clinical applications of MAO-inhibitors. Curr Med Chem 2004; 11: 2003–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Poirier J. Evidence that the clinical effects of cholinesterase inhibitors are related to potency and targeting of action. Int J Clin Pract Suppl 2002; 127: 6–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Olbe L, Carlsson E, Lindberg P. A proton-pump inhibitor expedition: the case histories of omeprazole and esomeprazole. Nature Rev Drug Discov 2003; 2: 132–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Howell A, Osborne CK, Morris C, et al. ICI 182,780 (Faslodex): development of a novel, “pure” antestrogen. Cancer 2000; 89: 817–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Amara SG, Kuhar MJ. Neurotransmitter transporters: recent progress. Annu Rev Neurosci 1993; 16: 73–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zannad F, Fay R. Blood pressure-lowering efficacy of olmesartan relative to other angiotensin II receptor antagonists: an overview of randomized controlled studies. Fund Clin Pharm 2007; 21: 181–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hudson M, Humphries K, Tu JV, et al. Angiotensin II receptor blockers for the treatment of heart failure: a class effect? Pharmacotherapy 2007; 27: 526–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vauquelin G, Van Liefde I. Slow antagonist dissociation and long-lasting in vivo receptor protection. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2006; 27: 355–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vauquelin G, Fierens F, Van Liefde I. Long-lasting AT1 receptor binding and protenction by candesartan: comparison to other biphenyl-tetrazole sartans. J Hypertens 2006; 24: S23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fuchs B, Breithaupt-Grogler K, Belz GG, et al. Comparative pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of candesartan and losartan in man. J Pharm Pharmacol 2000; 52: 1075–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Van Noord JA, Smeets JJ, Custers FLJ, et al. Pharmacodynamic steady state of tiotropium in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur Respir J 2002; 19: 639–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Disse B, Speck G, Rominger KL, et al. Tiotropium (Spiriva): mechanistical considerations and clinical profile in obstructive lung disease. Life Sci 1999; 64: 457–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Oostenbrink JB, Rutten-van Molken MPMH, Al MJ, et al. One-year cost-effectiveness of tiotropium versus ipratropium to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur Respir J 2004; 23: 241–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lee KS, Tsein RW. Mechanism of calcium channel blockade by verapamil, D600, diltiazem and nitrendipine in single dialysed heart cells. Nature 1983; 302: 790–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Robertson RM, Robertson D. Drugs used for the treatment of myocardial ischemia. In: Hardman JG, Limbird LE, editors. Goodman & Gilman’s the pharmacological basis of therapeutics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996: 759–79Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kidwell GA, Greenspon AJ, Greenberg RM, et al. Use-dependent prolongation of ventricular tachycardia cycle length by type 1 antiarrhythmic drugs in humans. Circulation 1993; 87: 118–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Roden DM. Antiarrhythmic drugs. In: Hardman JG, Limbird LE, editors. Goodman & Gilman’s the pharmacological basis of therapeutics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996: 839–74Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bartolucci AA, Howard G. Meta-analysis of data from six primary prevention trials of cardiovascular events using aspirin. Am J Cardiol 2006; 98: 746–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Roth GJ, Majerus PW. The mechanism of the effect of aspirin on human platelets: I. Acetylation of a particulate fraction protein. J Clin Invest 1975; 56: 624–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Callan OH, So O, Swinney DC. The kinetic factors which determine the affinity and selectivity for slow-binding inhibition of human prostaglandin H synthase 1 and 2 by indomethacin and flurbiprofen. J Biol Chem 1996; 271: 3548–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hippius H. A historical perspective of clozapine. J Clin Psychiatry 1999; 60 (Suppl. 12): 22–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Casey DE. The relationship of pharmacology to side effects. J Clin Psychiatry 1997; 58 (Suppl. 10): 55–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Seeman P. An update of fast-off dopamine D2 atypical antipsychotics. Am J Psychiatry 2005; 162: 1984–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kapur S, Seeman P. Does fast dissociation from the dopamine D2 receptor explain the action of atypical antipsychotics? A new hypothesis. Am J Psychiatry 2001; 158: 360–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Laruelle M, D’Souza CD, Baldwin RM, et al. Imaging D2 receptor occupancy by endogenous dopamine in humans. Neuropsychopharmacology 1997; 17: 162–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ginovart N, Farde L, Halldin C, et al. Effect of reserpine-induced depletion of synaptic dopamine on [11C]raclopride binding to D2-dopamine receptors in the monkey brain. Synapse 1997; 25: 321–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Seeman P, Tallerico T. Rapid release of antipsychotic drugs from dopamine D2 receptors: an explanation for low receptor occupancy and early clinical relapse upon withdrawal of clozapine or quetiapine. Am J Psychiatry 1999; 156: 876–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kapur S, Seeman P. Antipsychotic agents differ in how fast they come off the dopamine D2 receptors: implications for atypical antipsychotic action. J Psychiatry Neurosci 2000; 25: 161–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tort ABL, Souza DO, Lara DR. Theoretical insights into the mechanism of action of atypical antipsychotics. Prog Neuro-psychopharm Biol Psychiarty 2006; 30: 541–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Seeman P. Atypical antipsychotics: mechanism of action. Can J Psychiatry 2002; 47: 27–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Collingridge GL, Bliss TVP. NMDA receptors: their role in long-term potentiation. Trends Neurosci 1987; 10: 288–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mobius HJ, Stoffler A, Graham SM. Memantine hydrochloride pharmacological and clinical profile. Drugs Today 2004; 40: 685–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lipton SA. Paradigm shift in neuroprotection by NMDA receptor blockade: memantine and beyond. Nature Rev Drug Discov 2006; 5: 160–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hawkey C, Talley NJ, Yeomans ND, et al. Improvements with esomeprazole in patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms taking non-steroidal antiinflam-matory drugs, including selective COX-2 inhibitors. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 1028–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Henry D, Lim LLY, Rodriguez LAG, et al. Variability in risk of gastrointestinal complications with individual non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: results of a collaborative meta-analysis. BMJ 1996; 312: 1563–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lanza FL. Endoscopic studies of gastric and duodenal injury after the use of ibuprofen, aspirin, and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents. Am J Med 1984; 77: 19–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lanza FL, Royer GL, Nelson RS, et al. Effects of flurbiprofen and aspirin on the gastric and duodenal mucosa: an endoscopic comparison. Am J Med 1986; 80: 31–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Simon LS, Lanza FL, Lipsky PE, et al. Preliminary study of the safety and efficacy of SC-58635, a novel cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor: efficacy and safety in two placebo-controlled trials in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis, and studies of gastrointestinal and platelet effects. Arthritis Rheum 1998; 41: 1591–602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mitchell JA, Akarascreenont P, Thiemermann C, et al. Selectivity of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs as inhibitors of constitutive and inducible cyclooxygenase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1993; 90: 11693–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Warner TD, Giulinao F, Vojnovic I, et al. Nonsteroid drug selectivities for cyclo-oxygenase-1 rather than cyclo-oxygenase-2 are associated with human gastrointestinal toxicity: a full in vitro analysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999; 96: 7563–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Swinney DC. Can binding kinetics translate to a clinically differentiated drug? From theory to practice. Lett Drug Des Discov 2006; 3: 569–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Copeland RA, Williams JM, Giannaras J, et al. Mechanism of selective inhibition of the inducible isoform of prostaglandin G/H synthase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1994; 91: 11202–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Balsinde J, Dennis EA. The incorporation of arachidonic acid into triacylglycerol in P388D1 macrophage-like cells. Eur J Biochem 1996; 235: 480–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Balsinde J, Fernandez B, Solis-Herruzo JA, et al. Pathways for arachidonicacid mobilization in zymosan stimulated mouse peritoneal macrophages. Biochim Biophys Acta 1992; 1136: 75–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Swinney DC, Mak AY, Barnett J, et al. Differential allosteric regulation of prostaglandin H synthase 1 and 2 by arachidonic acid. J Biol Chem 1997; 272: 12393–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kargman S, Wong E, Greig GM, et al. Mechanism of selective inhibition of human prostaglandin G/H synthase-1 and -2 in intact cells. Biochem Pharmacol 1996; 52: 1113–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hammond GB. Menopause and hormone replacement therapy: an overview. 1995; 87: 2–15Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Sato M, Rippy MK, Bryant HU. Raloxifene, tamoxifen, nafoxidine or estrogen effects on reproductive and nonreproductive tissues in ovariectomized rats. FASEB J 1996; 10: 905–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ward RL, Morgan G, Dalley D, et al. Tamoxifen reduces bone turnover and prevents lumbar spine and proximal femoral bone loss in early postmenopausal women. Bone Moner 1993; 20: 87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Black LJ, Sato M, Rowley ER, et al. Raloxifene (LY139481 HCl) prevents bone loss and reduces serum cholesterol without causing uterine hypertrophy in ovariectomized rats. J Clin Invest 1994; 93: 63–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Delmas PD, Bjarnason NH, Mitlak BH, et al. Effects of raloxifene on bone mineral density, serum cholesterol concentrations, and uterine endometrium in post-menopausal women. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 1641–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Gustafsson J-A. Raloxifene: magic bullet for heart and bone? Nature Med 1998; 4: 152–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Brzozowski AM, Pike ACW, Dauter Z, et al. Molecular basis of agonism and antagonism in the oestrogen receptor. Nature 1997; 389: 753–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Gronemeyer H, Gustafsson J-A, Laudet V. Principles for modulation of the nuclear receptor superfamily. Nature Rev Drug Discov 2004; 3: 950–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    O’Malley BW. Coregulators: from whence came these “master genes”. Mol Endocrinol 2005; 21: 1009–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biochemical PharmacologyRoche Palo Alto LLCPalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations