Noncompetitive inhibition scheme

In steps (1) and (2), S and I compete for (sites on) E to form the binary complexes ES and ET. In steps (3) and (4), the ternary complex EIS is formed from the binary complexes. In steps (5) and (6), ES and EIS form the product P if EIS is inactive, step (6) is ignored. Various special cases of competitive, noncompetitive, and mixed (competitive and noncompetitive) inhibition may be deduced from this general scheme, according to the steps allowed, and corresponding rate laws obtained. 

Full and partial noncompetitive inhibitory mechanisms, (a) Reaction scheme for full noncompetitive inhibition indicates binding of substrate and inhibitor to two mutually exclusive sites. The presence of inhibitor prevents release of product, (b) Lineweaver-Burk plot for full noncompetitive inhibition reveals a common intercept with the 1/[S] axis and an increase in slope to infinity at infinitely high inhibitor concentrations. In this example, K =3 IulM. (c) Replot of Lineweaver-Burk slopes from (b) is linear, confirming a full inhibitory mechanism, (d) Reaction scheme for partial noncompetitive inhibition indicates binding of substrate and inhibitor to two mutually exclusive sites. The presence of inhibitor alters (reduces) the rate of release of product by a factor p. (e) Lineweaver-Burk plot for partial noncompetitive inhibition reveals a common intercept with the 1/[5] axis and an increase in slope to a finite value at infinitely high inhibitor concentrations. In this example, /Cj= 3 iulM and P = 0.5. (f) Replot of Lineweaver-Burk slopes from (e) is hyperbolic, confirming a partial inhibitory mechanism... 

For IC5o determinations, the substrate concentration should be close to the Am for the marker reaction. As discussed previously, this choice of substrate concentration allows an estimate of the A) value because IC50 = 2A) for competitive inhibition and IC50 = A, for noncompetitive inhibition. For A) determinations, a common substrate concentration scheme is Am/3, Am, 3Am, 6Am, and 10Am. Assuming that the Km for the reaction has been accurately determined, this range of substrate concentrations will provide an adequate spread of data on an Eadie-Hofstee plot to readily observe the mechanism of direct inhibition. For some substrates, solubility can become limiting at concentrations >2Am. In such cases, it becomes necessary to choose alternate concentrations so that no fewer than five concentrations are used in a A, determination. The choice of substrate... 

Sometimes an inhibitor can bind to both the free enzyme (E) and to the enzyme-substrate (E-S) complex, resulting in mixed inhibition (Scheme 4). This type of inhibition involves binding of the inhibitor to a site other than at the active site for binding to the E-S complex to occur. A special case of mixed inhibition when and K m are equal is called noncompetitive inhibition. 

The equilibria shown below represent the simplest scheme for mixed-type inhibition (actually a form of noncompetitive inhibition) ... 

In pure noncompetitive inhibition, the inhibitor binds with equal affinity to the free enzyme and to the enzyme-substrate (ES) complex. In noncompetitive inhibition, the enzyme-inhibitor-substrate complex IES does not react to give product P. A kinetic scheme for noncompetitive inhibition is given in Figure 6.41... 

Reflect and Apply Noncompetitive inhibition is a limiting case in which the effect of binding inhibitor has no effect on the affinity for the substrate and vice versa. Suggest what a Lineweaver-Burk plot would look like for an inhibitor that had a reaction scheme similar to that on page 162 (noncompetitive inhibition reaction), but where binding inhibitor lowered the affinity of El for the substrate. 

Early data on the substrate and inhibitor reactions of nitrogenase were interpreted in terms of five binding sites, with competitive, noncompetitive, unclassified, and negative inhibition being observed (127). This apparent complexity can be readily rationalized in terms of the Lowe—Thorneley scheme (Fig. 9) by assuming that different substrates bind at different oxidation states of the same site. 

O Figure 4-10a shows a reaction scheme for interactions of enzyme and substrate with a full noncompetitive inhibitor. The inhibitor interacts with a site distinct from the active site, and the ESI complex is incapable of yielding product. It is thus possible, at saturating concentrations of inhibitor, to drive all enzymes to a nonproductive form, and so activity can be completely inhibited. Furthermore, the affinity of the inhibitor for the saturable allosteric inhibitory site remains independent of substrate concentration. A Lineweaver-Burk plot (O Figure 4-1 Ob) reveals a common intersection point on the 1/ [ S] axis for the data obtained at different inhibitor concentrations. It can be seen that as inhibitor concentration increases toward infinity, the slope of the Lineweaver-Burk plot increases toward infinity. Thus, a replot of the slopes versus inhibitor concentrations (O Figure 4-lOc) generates a straight line, which intersects the [i] axis at a value equal to —Ki. 

Fromm and Rudolph have discussed the practical limitations on interpreting product inhibition experiments. The table below illustrates the distinctive kinetic patterns observed with bisubstrate enzymes in the absence or presence of abortive complex formation. It should also be noted that the random mechanisms in this table (and in similar tables in other texts) are usually for rapid equilibrium random mechanism schemes. Steady-state random mechanisms will contain squared terms in the product concentrations in the overall rate expression. The presence of these terms would predict nonhnearity in product inhibition studies. This nonlin-earity might not be obvious under standard initial rate protocols, but products that would be competitive in rapid equilibrium systems might appear to be noncompetitive in steady-state random schemes , depending on the relative magnitude of those squared terms. See Abortive Complex... 

An uncompetitive inhibitor is much like a noncompetitive inhibitor except that an uncompetitive inhibitor binds only the enzyme-substrate complex (Scheme 4.14). The inhibitor-bound ternary complex cannot form product. Uncompetitive inhibitors cause both Vmax and Km to decrease by the same factor (Figure 4.17). Because the slope of a Lineweaver-Burk plot is Km/Vmxi, the slope of the line of an inhibited enzyme is unchanged from the uninhibited enzyme.4... 

Mechanisms of CYP inhibition can be broadly divided into two categories reversible inhibition and mechanism-based inactivation. Depending on the mode of interaction between CYP enzymes and inhibitors, reversible CYP inhibition is further characterized as competitive, noncompetitive, uncompetitive, and mixed (Ito et al., 1998b). Evaluation of reversible inhibition of CYP reactions is often conducted under conditions where M-M kinetics is obeyed. Based on the scheme illustrated in Fig. 5.1, various types of reversible inhibition are summarized in Table 5.1. Figure 5.1 depicts a simple substrate-enzyme complex during catalysis. In the presence of a reversible inhibitor, such a complex can be disrupted leading to enzyme inhibition. 

When an inhibitor is added to the enzyme reaction, the reaction mixture may comprise more than one enzyme complex, namely ES, El, and/or ESI (Scheme 16.1) (Segel, 1987 Shou et al., 2001). Since the ES concentration ([ES]) decreases with an increase in [I], the rate of product formation (kp[ESJ) can decline (0 general kinetic model used to describe the interaction between substrate (S), inhibitor (I) and enzyme (E). Based on nature of inhibition, inhibition kinetics can be categorized to competitive, noncompetitive, uncompetitive and mixed type inhibitions. 

Enzyme-catalyzed reactions can be strongly inhibited by the presence of other compounds. This effect sets the basis for many enzyme assays enabling, in the presence of a substrate, the determination of the concentration of the inhibitor (analyte). There are two mechanisms of inhibition reversible and irreversible. Reversible inhibition can be further distinguished as competitive, noncompetitive, uncompetitive, and mixed type of inhibition. A brief scheme of the most important mechanisms is depicted in Figure 8. 

---