About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
Not Voodoo

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
Realizations in Biostatistics
ChemSpider Blog
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa

Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net

Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine

Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem

Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus

Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« Worst Animal Model: Nominations Are Open | Main | Put Your Money Down »

April 22, 2007

Melting Keys and Squishy Locks

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Pretty much the only thing that an interested lay person has heard about ligand binding is the "lock and key" metaphor. I'm not saying that you could walk down the sidewalk getting nods of recognition with it, but if someone's heard anything about how enzymes or receptors work (well, anything correct), that's probably what they've heard.

And there's a lot to it. Many proteins are really, really good at picking out their ligands from crowds of similar compounds. (If they were perfect at it, on the other hand, we drug company types would be out of business). But the lock-and-key metaphor makes the listener believe that both the ligand and the protein are rigid objects, which they most definitely are not. There's no everyday analog to the way that two conformationally mobile objects fit to each other - well, OK, maybe there is, but it's not one that you can safely use for illustrative purposes. Ahem.

The other big breakdown of the lock and key is that it doesn't deal well with the numerous proteins that can recognize more than one ligand for their binding sites. Particularly impressive are the nuclear receptors and the CYP metabolizing enzymes. Both those classes bind a bewildering number of not-very-similar compounds, and they can do it impressively well. They manage the trick by having binding pockets that can drastically change their shapes and charge distributions, as parts of the proteins themselves slide, twist, and flip around. I can't come up with even a vulgar metaphor for that process.

I'm thinking of doing several posts on the limits of metaphor and simplification in science, and if I do, this will be the first. It's a constant struggle not to mistake the picture for the real thing, particularly if the simplification is a pretty useful one. But eventually, no matter how good, the metaphor will thin out on you, and you'll be in the position of a Greek bird pecking at some painted fruit and wondering why it's still hungry.

Comments (29) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: In Silico | Metaphors, Good and Bad


1. Milo on April 22, 2007 8:49 PM writes...

This is a great topic. I have always been amused at the fact that even established researchers can get hooked on the metaphoric way of thinking, so much so that they inadvertently put on a set of blinders.

Permalink to Comment

2. Martin Löwdin on April 22, 2007 9:10 PM writes...

As a student of rhetoric (of the philosophy-heavy Euro variety) I really like this initiative. Metaphors are strong tools and always in dire need of scrutiny, not just because they often act as blinders but because they, in essence, define our whole reality.

Permalink to Comment

3. Mark H on April 22, 2007 9:37 PM writes...

Have you seen Joel Spolosky's Law of Leaky Abstrations? It's sort of the same idea, but he applies it to software.

Most of the reason I read this blog is so that my abstractions get more sophisticated. (and, how high-reliability things get formed out of seeming chaos.)

Permalink to Comment

4. milkshake on April 22, 2007 11:09 PM writes...

Ahh, now I understand why the pictures of ligand-in-da-protein co-crystals are so exciting to behold. They are X-ray-rated.

Permalink to Comment

5. Eric on April 23, 2007 12:45 AM writes...

I personally like the "hand and glove" metaphor for ligand-enzyme binding. It includes chirality, "induced fit", promiscuity of ligands, and so on, and illustrates some of the difficulty of designing a "hand" that only fits in one "glove."

Permalink to Comment

6. Andre H on April 23, 2007 3:29 AM writes...

My favorite extension of the "hand in glove" metaphor is "rubber hand in rubber glove".

Permalink to Comment

7. pieman on April 23, 2007 3:49 AM writes...

Milo, I agree that science metaphors that put the blinkers on researchers is a great topic. Perhaps more controversialy, I wonder if there are any industry-based R&D metaphors that are misinterpreted by the academic community. For example, does the image of linearity conjured up by the drug pipeline lead to non-industry researchers lacking a full appreciation of the circularity of drug discovery and development?

Permalink to Comment

8. Monte Davis on April 23, 2007 8:43 AM writes...

Yessssssss! Looking forward to it.

You know my hobbyhorse from previous posts: as well as being both floppy and specific beyond intuition, the co-conformation is very very fast and very very frequent compared to even our best visualizations.

Permalink to Comment

9. Keith Robison on April 23, 2007 9:07 AM writes...

I can't possibly imagine what commonplace occurrence you are thinking of, but an obvious one is shaking hands. Pick a partner and try to do it keeping each hand rigid. Alternatively, try to do it when one person starts with a fist. Initial shape matters, but so does induced fit!

Permalink to Comment

10. Morten on April 23, 2007 9:30 AM writes...

What about entropy loss upon ligand binding? How do you analogue that? ... Ok, I came up with one on my own (took me about three seconds) but alas not really kiddie friendly. Floppiness is always bad apparently.

Permalink to Comment

11. Wavefunction on April 23, 2007 9:38 AM writes...

"Good scientists can see analgies between theories. The best scientists can see analogies between analogies"-
Stan Ulam, Hungarian mathematician

Permalink to Comment

12. Wavefunction on April 23, 2007 9:40 AM writes...

Sorry, make that Polish mathematician.Too many famous Hungarian mathematicians and physicists in that time!

Permalink to Comment

13. Mataphoricly lost on April 23, 2007 10:02 AM writes...

My favorite metaphor came from my previous director who one described an ailing project as a "a blind man in a dark room trying to find a nonexistant black cat."

Permalink to Comment

14. RKN on April 23, 2007 10:36 AM writes...

I think one of the most misleading metaphors recently was Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene."

Permalink to Comment

15. curiousGeorge on April 23, 2007 11:21 AM writes...

For most self-referential, I nominate the meme meme:

Permalink to Comment

16. Wavefunction on April 23, 2007 11:47 AM writes...

RKN: True, although it was other people who misunderstood what Dawkins was saying.

Permalink to Comment

17. The Vulgar Metaphor Guy on April 23, 2007 1:09 PM writes...

"They manage the trick by having binding pockets that can drastically change their shapes and charge distributions, as parts of the proteins themselves slide, twist, and flip around. I can't come up with even a vulgar metaphor for that process."

It's an octopus making love to a plate of spaghetti.

Permalink to Comment

18. Wavefunction on April 23, 2007 4:46 PM writes...

Vulgar Metaphor: Bravo!

Permalink to Comment

19. srp on April 23, 2007 4:57 PM writes...

The enzyme thing sounds like a good prospect for an animated, pictorial metaphor. Colored balls connected by sticks thrashing and flexing and merging and releasing...OK, going to stop now.

Permalink to Comment

20. milkshake on April 23, 2007 8:54 PM writes...

Speaking of vulgar methaphors: Derek, have you ever posted a goatse picture on your website? Check out mine. I have to advertise this here because 600 views later nobody noticed something's wrong!

Permalink to Comment

21. ac on April 23, 2007 8:55 PM writes...

I once took a class from Ron Breslow in which he repeatedly bashed the lock and key model in favor of the Venus flytrap model. His argument is that the flytrap analogy is better because ligands constantly go past the receptor but the enzyme only folds down on ("eats") a certain type of "prey".

If for no other reason, I like using this analogy with non-scientists because it draws on their knowledge of science to explain the idea. Even if there's absolutely no connection between tropical botany and medicinal chemistry, the comparison seems to evoke images of guys in lab coats in their minds.

Permalink to Comment

22. CJ Croy on April 24, 2007 4:50 AM writes...

Milkshake: I think there's a good chance he has never experienced the joy of goatse. I think he's better for it.


My favorite metaphor is one I heard for prion disorders: "Angry shapes".

Permalink to Comment

23. CJ Croy on April 24, 2007 5:51 AM writes...

Milkshake: I think there's a good chance he has never experienced the joy of goatse. I think he's better for it.


My favorite metaphor is one I heard for prion disorders: "Angry shapes".

Permalink to Comment

24. MolecularGeek on April 24, 2007 11:41 AM writes...

It's probably too rigid-body and ordered to satisfy the best parts of the metaphor, but how about those solid puzzles that are stacked together and that depend on the right bits sliding together to stay in the desired shape?


Permalink to Comment

25. wjs on April 24, 2007 2:34 PM writes...

Reading all this reminds me of one of my favorite metaphores. It was presented by Sei Otsuka while visiting Cornell in 1980. He said "It is more difficult for a right-handed man to open the kimono of a gisha than for a left-handed man because the kimono is fastened on the left side. Thus, the gisha is an enentioselective catalyst."

Permalink to Comment

26. Hap on April 24, 2007 3:58 PM writes...


Wouldn't the geisha technically be an enantioselective reagent (she isn't exactly the same before (reaction) as after)? In addition, I wouldn't figure that opening the kimono would be the rate-determining step, so that even though the rate of opening the kimono depends on the handedness of her vistor, the overall rate of reaction doesn't.

Permalink to Comment

27. rosko on April 24, 2007 6:14 PM writes...


The Venus flytrap analogy is not only a good metaphor, it actually is a good picture of what is really going on (in a detailed sense) in certain cases. There even is a common fold in certain receptors (for instance metabotropic glutamate and other Class C GPCRs, for those of you who know what those are) called the "Venus flytrap domain", and it consists of two lobes that snap shut when an agonist binds to residues on both lobes (or is pried apart when the ligand is too big--and therefore an antagonist).

And wjs, that's one of the funniest scientific metaphors I've heard. Another is from one of my professors, who was describing how many antibiotics inhibit protein synthesis by blocking the peptide exit channel on the large ribosomal subunit: He told us to remember the mechanism as "molecular constipation".

Permalink to Comment

28. Jonadab the Unsightly One on April 24, 2007 10:16 PM writes...

Sometimes I think using these kinds of metaphors at all can be a bad idea, because people get them stuck in their heads and can't let go, and it colors everything they think afterwards. In basic high-school-level chemistry there a couple of different popular models that are both terribly wrong: the atom as a solar system, and the Bohr model. The former is worse, but the Bohr model is also spectacularly lousy. Electrons just don't behave like miniature charged marbles, and if you assume they do, you get very confused later in the semester when you try to reconcile your conception of atoms with actual chemistry.

Other fields have some pretty terrible-but-popular models and metaphors as well. In theology, for instance, the doctrine of the trinity is often explained (very badly) using an egg or a clover, and these analogies cause much more confusion than they alleviate. In physics, the "tied together with a piece of string" model for orbiting celestial objects is pretty horrible.

In math, a lot of undergrads have a terrible time when they first hit modern algebra, because they can't get real-number operations out of their heads. I guess that one's unavoidable, though: we can't very well stop teaching real number addition and multiplication in grade school, because it's too practically useful in fields other than math. Still, it's another example of how an oversimplified-but-concrete view of something gets embedded in the mind and hinders a deeper understanding later.

Permalink to Comment

29. srp on April 26, 2007 4:52 PM writes...

Did you ever notice that the classic "atom" logo isn't really like the solar system because the orbits intersect on perpendicular major axes? It's a great piece of graphics even if it's lousy science.

BTW, my high school chemistry book described the electrons as being like a swarm of bees with the hive as the nucleus.

Permalink to Comment


Remember Me?


Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):

The Last Post
The GSK Layoffs Continue, By Proxy
The Move is Nigh
Another Alzheimer's IPO
Cutbacks at C&E News
Sanofi Pays to Get Back Into Oncology
An Irresponsible Statement About Curing Cancer
Oliver Sacks on Turning Back to Chemistry