4.2 Article

Label-free determination of protein-ligand binding constants using mass spectrometry and validation using surface plasmon resonance and isothermal titration calorimetry

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR RECOGNITION
卷 22, 期 4, 页码 319-329

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jmr.951

关键词

nanoelectrospray mass spectrometry; noncovalent complexes; carbonic anhydrase; isothermal titration calorimetry; surface plasmon resonance

资金

  1. Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research (Boston, MA, USA)
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation [200020-111831]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We performed a systematic comparison of three label-free methods for quantitative assessment of binding strengths of proteins interacting with small molecule ligands. The performance of (1) nanoelectrospray ionization mass spectrometry (nESI-MS), (2) surface plasmon resonance (SPR), and (3) isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) was compared for the determination of dissociation constants (K-D). The model system studied for this purpose was the human carbonic anhydrase I (hCAI) with eight known and well characterized sulfonamide inhibitors (Krishnamurthy et at., Chem. Rev. 2008,108:946-1051). The binding affinities of the inhibitors chosen vary by more than four orders of magnitude e.g., the K-D value determined for ethoxzolamide by nESI-MS was 5 +/- 1 nM and the K-D value for sulfanilamide was 145.7 +/- 10.0 mu M. The agreement of the determined K-D values by the three methods investigated was excellent for ethoxzolamide and benzenesulfonamide (variation with experimental error), good for acetazolamide and 4-carboxybenzenesulfonamide (variation by similar to one order of magnitude), but poor for others e.g., sulpiride. The accuracies of the K-D values are determined, and advantages and drawbacks of the individual methods are discussed. Moreover, we critically evaluate the three examined methods in terms of ease of the measurement, sample consumption, time requirement, and discuss their limitations. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据