4.3 Article

Mechanical affinity as a new metrics to evaluate binding events

Journal

REVIEWS IN ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 32, Issue 3, Pages 197-208

Publisher

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/revac-2013-0004

Keywords

chemical affinity; ligand-receptor interaction; mechanical affinity; mechanical stability; single-molecule methods

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [CHE-1026532]
  2. Division Of Chemistry
  3. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1026532] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Binding affinity is measured by dissociation constant, K-d, which uses concentration as units. The universal concentration units facilitate direct comparison of affinities for different binding events. However, K-d is a thermodynamic parameter, which lacks kinetic information of a binding event. In addition, K-d does not reveal the mechanical property of the binding, which emerges as a critical element for many physiologically significant processes such as DNA replication, RNA transcription, and protein translation. Here we propose a new parameter, mechanical affinity, to delineate kinetic and mechanical features of a binding event. The mechanical affinity is equivalent to the work required to dissemble the chemical binding between a ligand and a receptor. During this process, it must cover dissipated heat that originates from the relative movement between a ligand and a receptor. Because dissipated heat varies with unfolding direction or rate of mechanical perturbation, the mechanical affinity is a function of these two variables. Screening of chemicals using rupture force of a ligand-receptor complex or mechanical affinity is discussed at the end of this review. The interrogation on the mechanical interaction between a ligand and a receptor provides a new perspective not available in conventional thermodynamic evaluation of binding processes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available