No abstract

Accurately predicting the binding affinity of ligands to their receptors by computational methods is one of the major challenges in structure-based drug design. One of the potentially significant errors in these predictions is the common assumption that the ligand binding affinity contributions of noncovalent interactions are additive. Herein we present data obtained from two separate series of thrombin inhibitors containing hydrophobic side chains of increasing size that bind in the S3 pocket and with, or without, an adjacent amine that engages in a hydrogen bond with Gly 216. The first series of inhibitors has a m-chlorobenzyl moiety binding in the S1 pocket, and the second has a benzamidine moiety. When the adjacent hydrogen bond is present, the enhanced binding affinity per A(2) of hydrophobic contact surface in the S3 pocket improves by 75% and 59%, respectively, over the inhibitors lacking this hydrogen bond. This improvement of the binding affinity per A(2) demonstrates cooperativity between the hydrophobic interaction and the hydrogen bond.

No abstract

A congeneric series of benzamidine-type ligands with a central proline moiety and a terminal cycloalkyl group--linked by a secondary amine, ether, or methylene bridge--was synthesized as trypsin inhibitors. This series of inhibitors was investigated by isothermal titration calorimetry, crystal structure analysis in two crystal forms, and molecular dynamics simulations. Even though all of these congeneric ligands exhibited essentially the same affinity for trypsin, their binding profiles at the structural, dynamic, and thermodynamic levels are very distinct. The ligands display a pronounced enthalpy/entropy compensation that results in a nearly unchanged free energy of binding, even though individual enthalpy and entropy terms change significantly across the series. Crystal structures revealed that the secondary amine-linked analogs scatter over two distinct conformational families of binding modes that occupy either the inside or of the outside the protein's S3/S4 specificity pocket. In contrast, the ether-linked and methylene-linked ligands preferentially occupy the hydrophobic specificity pocket. This also explains why the latter ligands could only be crystallized in the conformationally restricting closed crystal form whereas the derivative with the highest residual mobility in the series escaped our attempts to crystallize it in the closed form; instead, a well-resolved structure could only be achieved in the open form with the ligand in disordered orientation. These distinct binding modes are supported by molecular dynamics simulations and correlate with the shifting enthalpic/entropic signatures of ligand binding. The examples demonstrate that, at the molecular level, binding modes and thermodynamic binding signatures can be very different even for closely related ligands. However, deviating binding profiles provide the opportunity to optimally address a given target.