Advertisement

Drug Design pp 61-88 | Cite as

Protein–Ligand Interactions as the Basis for Drug Action

Reference work entry

Abstract

To purposefully design an active substance the following questions must first be answered: How does a drug act anyway? How does Aspirin® relieve headaches? Why do β-blockers lower blood pressure? Where does a calcium channel blocker act? How does cocaine work? How do sulfonamides prevent the proliferation of bacterial pathogens? An active substance must bind to a very special target molecule in the body to exert its pharmacological action. Usually this is a protein, but nucleic acids in the form of RNA and DNA can also be target structures for active molecules. An important prerequisite for the binding is that the active substance has the correct size and shape to fit into a cavity on the surface of the protein, a binding pocket, as well as possible. Furthermore, it is also necessary that the surface properties of ligand and protein fit together so that the specific interactions can form. In 1894, Emil Fischer compared the exact fit of a substrate for the catalytic center of an enzyme to the picture of a lock and key. In 1913, Paul Ehrlich formulated the Corpora non agunt nisi fixata, which literally translated means “bodies do not act if they are not bound.” With this he wanted to express that drugs that are meant to kill bacteria or parasites must be “fixed,” that is, bound by certain structures. Both concepts form the starting point for rational drug research. In the broadest sense, they are valid even today. After being taken, a drug must arrive at its target tissue and enter into interactions with biological macromolecules there. Specific active substances have a high affinity to a binding site on these macromolecules and are adequately selective. It is only in this way that the desired biological effect can be deployed without extensive side effects.

Keywords

Binding Affinity Binding Pocket Ligand Complex Ligand Interaction Residual Mobility 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

General Literature

  1. Andrews PR (1993) Drug-receptor interactions. In: Kubinyi H (ed) 3D-QSAR in drug design. Theory, methods and applications. Escom, Leiden, pp 13–40Google Scholar
  2. Andrews PR, Craik DJ, Martin JL (1984) Functional group contributions to drug-receptor interactions. J Med Chem 27:1648–1657PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Böhm HJ, Klebe G (1996) What can we learn from molecular recognition in protein-ligand complexes for the design of new drugs? Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 35:2588–2614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Böhm H-J, Schneider G (2003) Protein-ligand interactions. From molecular recognition to drug design. In: Mannhold R, Mannhold R, Kubinyi H, Folkers G (eds) Methods and principles in medicinal chemistry. Wiley-VCH, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  5. Creighton TE (1992) Proteins: structures and molecular properties, 2nd edn. W.H. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Gohlke H, Klebe G (2002) Approaches to the description and prediction of binding affinity of small-molecule ligands to macromolecular receptors. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 41:2644–2676PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kuntz ID, Chen K, Sharp KA, Kollman PA (1999) The maximal affinity of ligands. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:9997–10002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Special Literature

  1. Ehrlich P (1913) Chemotherapeutics: scientific principles, methods and results. Lancet 182:445–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fersht AR, Shi JP, Knill-Jones J et al (1985) Hydrogen bonding and biological specificity analysed by protein engineering. Nature 314:235–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gerlach C, Smolinski M et al (2007) Thermodynamic inhibition profile of a cyclopentyl- and a cyclohexyl derivative towards thrombin: the same, but for deviating reasons. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 46:8511–8514PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Lichtenthaler FW (1994) 100 Years “Schluessel-Schloss-Prinzip”: what made Emil Fischer use this analogy? Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 33:2364–2374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Mason RP, Rhodes DG, Herbette LG (1991) Reevaluating equilibrium and kinetic binding parameters for lipophilic drugs based on a structural model for drug interaction with biological membranes. J Med Chem 34:869–877PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Morgan BP, Scholtz JM, Ballinger MD, Zipkin ID, Bartlett PA (1991) Differential binding energy: a detailed evaluation of the influence of hydrogen-bonding and hydrophobic groups on the inhibition of thermolysin by phosphorous-containing inhibitors. J Am Chem Soc 113:297–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Petrova T, Steuber H et al (2005) Factorizing selectivity determinants of inhibitor binding toward aldose and aldehyde reductases: structural and thermodynamic properties of the aldose reductase mutant Leu300Pro-Fidarestat complex. J Med Chem 48:5659–5665PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Pharmaceutical ChemistryPhilipps-University MarburgMarburgGermany

Personalised recommendations