Enzyme uncompetitive

Like a noncompetitive inhibitor, an uncompetitive inhibitor does not compete with the substrate since it binds to the enzyme—substrate complex but not to the free enzyme. Uncompetitive inhibition... 

Reversible inhibition of an enzyme is competitive, uncompetitive, or mixed. Competitive inhibitors compete with substrate by binding reversibly to the active site, but they are not transformed by the enzyme. Uncompetitive inhibitors bind only to the ES complex, at a site distinct from the active site. Mixed inhibitors bind to either E or ES, again at a site distinct from the active site. In irreversible inhibition an inhibitor binds permanently to an active site by forming a covalent bond or a veiy stable noncovalent interaction. 

The three most common t3q>es of reversible inhibition occurring in enzymatic reactions are competitive, uncompetitive, and noncompetitive. (See Problem P7-12b) The enzyme molecule is analogous to the heterogeneous catalytic surface in that it contains active sites. When competitive Inhibition occurs, the substrate and inhibitor are usually similar molecules that compete for the same site on the enzyme. Uncompetitive inhibition occurs when the inhibitor deactivates the enzyme-substrate complex, usually by attaching itself to both tlie substrate and enzyme molecules of the complex. Noncompetitive inhibition occurs with enzymes containing at least two different types of sites. The inhibitor attaches to only one type of site and the substrate only to the other. Derivation of the rate laws for these three types of inhibition is shown on the CD-ROM. 

Most inhibition of enzymes is competitive, uncompetitive, or noncompetitive. Competitive inhibitors reversibly compete with substrate for the same site on free enzyme. Uncompetitive inhibitors bind only to the enzyme-substrate complex and not the free enzyme. Noncompetitive inhibitors can bind to both the enzyme and the enzyme-substrate complex. 

Uncompetitive antagonism, form of inhibition (originally defined for enzyme kinetics) in which both the maximal asymptotic value of the response and the equilibrium dissociation constant of the activator (i.e., agonist) are reduced by the antagonist. This differs from noncompetitive antagonism where the affinity of the receptor for the activating drug is not altered. Uncompetitive effects can occur due to allosteric modulation of receptor activity by an allosteric modulator (see Chapter 6.4). 

Substrate and product inhibitions analyses involved considerations of competitive, uncompetitive, non-competitive and mixed inhibition models. The kinetic studies of the enantiomeric hydrolysis reaction in the membrane reactor included inhibition effects by substrate (ibuprofen ester) and product (2-ethoxyethanol) while varying substrate concentration (5-50 mmol-I ). The initial reaction rate obtained from experimental data was used in the primary (Hanes-Woolf plot) and secondary plots (1/Vmax versus inhibitor concentration), which gave estimates of substrate inhibition (K[s) and product inhibition constants (A jp). The inhibitor constant (K[s or K[v) is a measure of enzyme-inhibitor affinity. It is the dissociation constant of the enzyme-inhibitor complex. 

Fig. 5.16. Enzyme mechanism with uncompetitive substrate inhibition.

Enzyme reaction kinetics were modelled on the basis of rapid equilibrium assumption. Rapid equilibrium condition (also known as quasi-equilibrium) assumes that only the early components of the reaction are at equilibrium.8-10 In rapid equilibrium conditions, the enzyme (E), substrate (S) and enzyme-substrate (ES), the central complex equilibrate rapidly compared with the dissociation rate of ES into E and product (P ). The combined inhibition effects by 2-ethoxyethanol as a non-competitive inhibitor and (S)-ibuprofen ester as an uncompetitive inhibition resulted in an overall mechanism, shown in Figure 5.20. 

P-site ligands inhibit adenylyl cyclases by a noncompetitive, dead-end- (post-transition-state) mechanism (cf. Fig. 6). Typically this is observed when reactions are conducted with Mn2+ or Mg2+ on forskolin- or hormone-activated adenylyl cyclases. However, under- some circumstances, uncompetitive inhibition has been noted. This is typically observed with enzyme that has been stably activated with GTPyS, with Mg2+ as cation. That this is the mechanism of P-site inhibition was most clearly demonstrated with expressed chimeric adenylyl cyclase studied by the reverse reaction. Under these conditions, inhibition by 2 -d-3 -AMP was competitive with cAMP. That is, the P-site is not a site per se, but rather an enzyme configuration and these ligands bind to the post-transition-state configuration from which product has left, but before the enzyme cycles to accept new substrate. Consequently, as post-transition-state inhibitors, P-site ligands are remarkably potent and specific inhibitors of adenylyl cyclases and have been used in many studies of tissue and cell function to suppress cAMP formation. 

Figure 3.2 Cartoon representations of the three major forms of reversible inhibitor interactions with enzymes (A) competitive inhibition (B) noncompetitive inhibition (C) uncompetitive inhibition. Source-. From Copeland (2000).

An inhibitor that binds exclusively to the ES complex, or a subsequent species, with little or no affinity for the free enzyme is referred to as uncompetitive. Inhibitors of this modality require the prior formation of the ES complex for binding and inhibition. Hence these inhibitors affect the steps in catalysis subsequent to initial substrate binding that is, they affect the ES —> ES1 step. One might then expect that these inhibitors would exclusively affect the apparent value of Vm and not influence the value of KM. This, however, is incorrect. Recall, as illustrated in Figure 3.1, that the formation of the ESI ternary complex represents a thermodynamic cycle between the ES, El, and ESI states. Hence the augmentation of the affinity of an uncompetitive inhibitor that accompanies ES complex formation must be balanced by an equal augmentation of substrate affinity for the El complex. The result of this is that the apparent values of both Vmax and Ku decrease with increasing concentrations of an uncompetitive inhibitor (Table 3.3). The velocity equation for uncompetitive inhibition is as follows ... 

Figure 3.12 Substrate titration of steady state velocity for an enzyme in the presence of an uncompetitive inhibitor at varying concentrations. (A) Untransformed data (B) data as in (A) plotted on a semilog scale (C) data as in (A) plotted in double reciprocal form. For all three plots the data are fit to Equation (3.6).

Table 3.5 Some examples of uncompetitive enzyme inhibitors in clinical use...

The modality of compounds that inhibit enzymes catalyzing bisubstrate reactions will differ with respect to the two substrates of the reaction, and the pattern of inhibition will depend on the reaction mechanism of the enzyme. Thus, when we use terms like competitive, noncompetitive, or uncompetitive inhibition, we must... 

Figure 3.16 Effects of substrate buildup in a metabolic pathway on the inhibition of an enzyme by competitive (closed circles) and uncompetitive (open circles) inhibitors of equal affinity for the target enzyme.

In this chapter we described the thermodynamics of enzyme-inhibitor interactions and defined three potential modes of reversible binding of inhibitors to enzyme molecules. Competitive inhibitors bind to the free enzyme form in direct competition with substrate molecules. Noncompetitive inhibitors bind to both the free enzyme and to the ES complex or subsequent enzyme forms that are populated during catalysis. Uncompetitive inhibitors bind exclusively to the ES complex or to subsequent enzyme forms. We saw that one can distinguish among these inhibition modes by their effects on the apparent values of the steady state kinetic parameters Umax, Km, and VmdX/KM. We further saw that for bisubstrate reactions, the inhibition modality depends on the reaction mechanism used by the enzyme. Finally, we described how one may use the dissociation constant for inhibition (Kh o.K or both) to best evaluate the relative affinity of different inhibitors for ones target enzyme, and thus drive compound optimization through medicinal chemistry efforts. 

We saw in Chapter 3 that bisubstrate reactions can conform to a number of different reaction mechanisms. We saw further that the apparent value of a substrate Km (KT) can vary with the degree of saturation of the other substrate of the reaction, in different ways depending on the mechanistic details. Hence the determination of balanced conditions for screening of an enzyme that catalyzes a bisubstrate reaction will require a prior knowledge of reaction mechanism. This places a necessary, but often overlooked, burden on the scientist to determine the reaction mechanism of the enzyme before finalizing assay conditions for HTS purposes. The importance of this mechanistic information cannot be overstated. We have already seen, in the examples of methotrexate inhibition of dihydrofolate, mycophenolic acid inhibiton of IMP dehydrogenase, and epristeride inhibition of steroid 5a-reductase (Chapter 3), how the [5]/A p ratio can influence one s ability to identify uncompetitive inhibitors of bisubstrate reactions. We have also seen that our ability to discover uncompetitive inhibitors of such reactions must be balanced with our ability to discover competitive inhibitors as well. 

Figure 5.4 Effects of [S] KAl ratio on the apparent IC value for competitive (closed circles), noncompetitive (closed squares a = 1) and uncompetitive (open circles) enzyme inhibitors. Note that the x-axis is plotted on a logarithmic scale for clarity.

---