Advertisement

Single Step Determination of Unlabeled Compound Kinetics Using a Competition Association Binding Method Employing Time-Resolved FRET

  • David A. Sykes
  • Steven J. Charlton
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1824)

Abstract

The competition association binding method allows the characterization of the kinetics of unlabeled compounds and the calculation of receptor-drug affinity (Kd). The Kd value is defined as the ratio of the dissociation constant (or koff) of the receptor-bound ligand to its association rate constant (or kon) for a system at equilibrium. Traditionally, competition association binding experiments have been carried out using radiometric detection methods with limited assay throughput. Here we describe a novel method for the determination of unlabeled compound kinetics using the technique of time-resolved fluorescence resonance energy transfer (TR-FRET) performed at physiological temperature and sodium ion concentration. Based on a traditional screening format (10-point curves), up to 28 compounds can be tested on a single 384-well plate by this method.

Key words

Time-resolved fluorescence resonance energy transfer Competition association binding kinetics Fluorescent ligand Terbium cryptate SNAP-tagged GPCR Association rate Dissociation rate 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Catherine Wark (BMG Labtech Ltd.) for expert technical assistance and BMG for personal sponsorship of David Sykes. Nicolas Pierre, Louise Affleck, Thomas Roux and François Degorce from CisBio Bioassays for their continuing support. Rob Lane from the Monash Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences for supplying the dopamine D2 agonists used in the competition association binding studies.

References

  1. 1.
    Motulsky HJ, Mahan LC (1984) The kinetics of competitive radioligand binding predicted by the law of mass action. Mol Pharmacol 25(1):1–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dowling MR, Charlton SJ (2006) Quantifying the association and dissociation rates of unlabelled antagonists at the muscarinic M3 receptor. Br J Pharmacol 148(7):927–937. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjp.0706819 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sykes DA, Dowling MR, Charlton SJ (2009) Exploring the mechanism of agonist efficacy: a relationship between efficacy and agonist dissociation rate at the muscarinic M3 receptor. Mol Pharmacol 76(3):543–551. https://doi.org/10.1124/mol.108.054452 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sykes DA, Dowling MR, Charlton SJ (2010) Measuring receptor target coverage: a radioligand competition binding protocol for assessing the association and dissociation rates of unlabeled compounds. In: Current protocols in pharmacology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471141755.ph0914s50
  5. 5.
    Xia L, de Vries H, AP IJ et al (2016) Scintillation proximity assay (SPA) as a new approach to determine a ligand's kinetic profile. A case in point for the adenosine A1 receptor. Purinergic Signal 12(1):115–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11302-015-9485-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schiele F, Ayaz P, Fernández-Montalván A (2015) A universal homogeneous assay for high-throughput determination of binding kinetics. Anal Biochem 468:42–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ab.2014.09.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sykes DA, Parry C, Reilly J et al (2014) Observed drug-receptor association rates are governed by membrane affinity: the importance of establishing “micro-pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships” at the beta2-adrenoceptor. Mol Pharmacol 85(4):608–617. https://doi.org/10.1124/mol.113.090209 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sykes DA, Bradley ME, Riddy DM et al (2016) Fevipiprant (QAW039), a slowly dissociating CRTh2 antagonist with the potential for improved clinical efficacy. Mol Pharmacol 89(5):593–605. https://doi.org/10.1124/mol.115.101832 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Motulsky HJ, Mahan LC, Ansel PA (1985) Radioligand, agonists and membrane receptors on intact cells: data analysis in a bind. Trends Pharmacol Sci 6:317–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-6147(85)90149-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klein Herenbrink C, Sykes DA, Donthamsetti P et al (2016) The role of kinetic context in apparent biased agonism at GPCRs. Nat Commun 7:10842. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10842 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sykes DA, Moore H, Stott L et al (2017) Extrapyramidal side effects of antipsychotics are linked to their association kinetics at dopamine D2 receptors. Nat Commun 8(1):763. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00716-z CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Motulsky H, Christopoulos A (2004) Fitting models to biological data using linear and nonlinear regression: a practical guide to curve fitting. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cheng Y, Prusoff WH (1973) Relationship between the inhibition constant (K1) and the concentration of inhibitor which causes 50 per cent inhibition (I50) of an enzymatic reaction. Biochem Pharmacol 22(23):3099–3108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carter CM, Leighton-Davies JR, Charlton SJ (2007) Miniaturized receptor binding assays: complications arising from ligand depletion. J Biomol Screen 12(2):255–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087057106297788 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Life Science, Queen’s Medical CentreUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations