Hall et al. raised two interrelated points on the article that has recently been published in TiPS1xOnaran, H.O. and Gurdal, H. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 1999; 20: 279–286Abstract | Full Text | Full Text PDF | PubMed | Scopus (100)See all References1: (1) the general behaviour of Hill coefficient in the interacting-receptor model, and (2) the discrepancy between the predictions of the model on Hill coefficient and the experimental data obtained in β2-adrenoceptor-overexpressing transgenic mice2xGurdal, H., Bond, R.A., Johnson, M.D., Friedman, E., and Onaran, H.O. Mol. Pharmacol. 1997; 52: 187–194PubMedSee all References2.We agree with their comments concerning the experimental data obtained in transgenic mice: a Hill coefficient of less than one, which cannot be predicted by the interacting-receptor model in the absence of a G-protein–receptor interaction, was indeed the case for the competition binding of isoproterenol to β2-adrenoceptor-overexpressing cardiac membranes in the presence of Gpp(NH)p. This point needs further clarification as commented on by Hall et al.However, the first point concerning the general behaviour of Hill coefficient in the model deserves some additional consideration. Unlike the case of nondissociating-multisubunit-multivalent proteins, different oligomers and the monomer in the interacting-receptor model are all in equilibrium with each other and only one of the monomeric states (active or inactive) of the receptor is assumed to enter the oligomerization equilibrium, which is reciprocally linked to the ligation equilibrium in an efficacy-dependent manner. Such a scenario brings additional complications to the expectations regarding the Hill coefficient of ligand-binding isoterms in the interacting-receptor model. Hill coefficient becomes a complicated function of receptor concentration, dimerization affinity (L), isomerization constant of monomeric receptor (J) and the efficacy parameter (β). The situation is summarized in Fig. 1Fig. 1, which shows the distribution of Hill coefficients depending on the efficacy parameters, β, at high receptor density (10−9) in the case of dimerization. Each point in the figure (10 000 points total) corresponds to random values of L, J and β, which were picked from log-uniform distributions in the following ranges: log(L)=[10,12], log(J)=[−4,2], log(β)=[−4,4]. Following points are evident in the picture: (1) Hill coefficient of neutral ligands [log(β)=0] is always 1 regardless of the initial abundance of R* (dimerization-competent monomeric state) and dimer, which are determined by J, L and the total number of receptors, (2) for active ligands [agonist or negative antagonist, log(β)≠0], the possibility that Hill coefficient >1 arises; however, (3) even for strong negative antagonists or for strong agonists [i.e. log(β)=−4 or 4, respectively], the possibility that Hill coefficient ≈1 still exists depending on the values of the other parameters. In other words, Hill slope >1 for active ligands at high receptor density is not a necessity in the model’s repertoire. Furthermore, at those points that possess Hill slopes close to 1 for active ligands (at high receptor density), it is still possible to observe affinity variation with the variation of receptor density, which implies parallel shifts in binding isotherms when receptor density is changed (not shown). Therefore, we would avoid using the Hill coefficient as a diagnostic parameter in the context of the interacting receptor model, unless the parameters J and L are known experimentally.Fig. 1Behaviour of Hill coefficient in an interacting-receptor model.View Large Image | Download PowerPoint Slide
Read full abstract