2024
DOI: 10.1111/bph.16327
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Why classical receptor theory, which ignores allostery, can effectively measure the strength of an allosteric effect as agonist's efficacy

H. Ongun Onaran,
Tommaso Costa

Abstract: Background and PurposeThe classical theory of receptor action has been used for decades as a powerful tool to estimate molecular determinants of ligand‐induced receptor activation (i.e., affinity and efficacy) from experimentally observable biological responses. However, it is also a well‐recognized fact that the receptor‐binding and activation mechanisms, and the parameters thereof, described in the classical theory contradict with the modern view of receptor activation based on allosteric principles.Experime… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 35 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…None can give information about the microscopic equilibrium constant, K A , which is what is needed to obtain information about the agonist binding site. Although the classical equations can, under limited conditions, take the same form as those that describe realistic mechanisms, it is agreed that equilibrium measurements cannot estimate the quantities with physical meaning—the underlying microscopic equilibrium constants [ 34 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…None can give information about the microscopic equilibrium constant, K A , which is what is needed to obtain information about the agonist binding site. Although the classical equations can, under limited conditions, take the same form as those that describe realistic mechanisms, it is agreed that equilibrium measurements cannot estimate the quantities with physical meaning—the underlying microscopic equilibrium constants [ 34 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%