Uncompetitive

Effect of the concentration of inhibitor on the Lineweaver-Burk plots for (a) competitive inhibition, (b) noncompetitive inhibition, and (c) uncompetitive inhibition. The inhibitor s concentration increases in the direction shown by the arrows. 

If 10% of the U.S. gasoline consumption were replaced by methanol for a twenty year period, the required reserves of natural gas to support that methanol consumption would amount to about one trillion m (36 TCF) or twice the 1990 annual consumption. Thus the United States could easily support a substantial methanol program from domestic reserves. However, the value of domestic natural gas is quite high. Almost all of the gas has access through the extensive pipeline distribution system to industrial, commercial, and domestic markets and the value of gas in these markets makes methanol produced from domestic natural gas uncompetitive with gasoline and diesel fuel, unless oil prices are very high. 

Woolen spinning is thus a very short sequence compared to worsted processing. Woolen yams are economically uncompetitive with worsted yams even at relatively coarse yam counts, a result of the yams being virtually made on the carding machine, the expense of the much larger card used, the low dehvery speed, and the very low card production in spinning fine yams, resulting from the low deUvery speed. 

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... 

The three most common types of inhibitors in enzymatic reactions are competitive, non-competitive, and uncompetitive. Competitive inliibition occurs when tlie substrate and inhibitor have similar molecules that compete for the identical site on the enzyme. Non-competitive inhibition results in 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. Uncompetitive inhibition occurs when the inhibitor deactivates the enzyme substrate complex. The effect of an inhibitor is determined by measuring the enzyme velocity at various... 

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. 

The values determined from Figure 5.23 agree well with the values calculated from the equations (Table 5.5), with an error of 3.81% for the slope and 4.65% for the intersect, respectively. The obtained experimental data were consistent with the proposed enzymatic reaction and the reaction mechanisms with uncompetitive substrate inhibition and the noncompetitive product inhibition model. 

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. 

Two additional characteristics of the inhibition of mineral absorption by phenolic acids were observed. The inhibition of both P0 absorption (27) and K+ absorption (31, 32) was reversed when the phenolic acid was removed from the absorption solution. Harper Balke (32) found this reversibility to be dependent upon pH the lower the pH, the less the reversal. Also, kinetic plots of the inhibition of mineral absorption showed that the phenolic acids did not competitively inhibit either P0 (26, 28) or K+ (31) absorption. Rather, ferulic acid inhibited PO -absorption in a noncompetitive (26) or uncompetitive (28) manner and jr-hydroxybenzoic acid inhibited K+ absorption in an uncompetitive manner (31). 

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 ... 

Comparing Equations (3.1), (3.3), and (3.7), it is easy to recognize that competitive and uncompetitive inhibition are merely special cases of the more general case of... 

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).

---