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

« Killing Proteins Wholesale | Main | An Eye For the Numbers »

May 23, 2008

Up Close and Personal

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Something that’s come up in the last few posts around here is the way that we chemists think about the insides of enzymes. It’s a tricky subject, because when you picture things on that scale, the intuition you have for objects starts to betray you.

Consider water. We humans have a pretty good practical understanding of how water behaves in the bulk phase; we have the experience. But what about five water molecules sitting in the pocket of an enzyme? That’s not exactly a glass from the tap. These guys are interacting with the protein as much (or more) than they’re interacting with each other, and our intuition about water molecules is based on how they act when it’s surrounded by plenty of their own.

And if five water molecules are hard to handle, how about one? There’s no hope of seeing any bulk properties now, because there’s no bulk. We’re more used to having trouble in the other direction, predicting group behavior from individuals: you can’t tell much about a thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle from one piece that you found under the couch, and you wouldn’t be able to say much about the behavior of an ant colony from observing one ant in a jar. And neither of those are worth very much, compared to their group. But with molecules, the single-ant-in-a-jar situation is very important (that’s a single water molecule sitting in the active site of an enzyme), and knowledge of ant social behavior or water’s actions in a glass doesn’t help much.

Larger molecules than water are our business, of course, and those are tricky, too. We can study the shape and flexibility of our drug candidates in solution (by NMR, to pick the easiest method), and in the solid phase, surrounded by packed arrays of themselves (X-ray crystal structures). But the way that they look inside an enzyme's active site doesn't have to be related to either of those, although you might as well start there.

As single-molecule (and single-atom) techniques have become more possible, we're starting to get an idea of how small clusters of them have to be before they stop acting like tiny pieces of what we're used to, and starts acting like something else. But these experiments are usually done in isolation, in the gas phase or on some inert surface. The inside of a protein is another thing entirely; molecules there are the opposite of isolated. And studying them in those small spaces is no small task.

Comments (4) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: In Silico


1. Aspirin on May 23, 2008 12:12 PM writes...

While the paper you cited is a very comprehensive study, there are some flaws in it, especially in the conclusions that ligands can bind proteins with strain energies as high as 15-20 kcal/mol. The measured binding affinity is what the protein expends in addition to the ligand strain penalty. So if you had a binding affinity of 5 kcal/mol and you thought the strain energy was 15 kcal/mol, then it basically means that the protein can deliver a total of 20 kcal/mol to bind the ligand. This is a huge number and highly improbable. It's hard to think of strain energies being higher than 5-7 kcal/mol.
You can also get high strain energies if you use ligands that have unrealistic conformations in electron densities because the crystallographer didn't place them there well enough, sometimes because of insufficient ED and sometimes because of lack of attention to basic principles (like amides should not be cis). In these cases the bound conformation is unduly strained and high in energy.

Permalink to Comment

2. Wavefunction on May 25, 2008 12:20 PM writes...

While NMR is a fantastic technique for determining conformations, one fundamental mistake that many make is in not recognizing that there are many conformations in solution for a flexible molecule and that the observed NMR data (coupling cosntants, distances from NOEs etc) is necessarily average data. They fit a single conformation to this average NMR data and claim that it is the dominant conformation in solution, a completely incorrect result. In fact the average conformation is non-existent, given that it's by definition an evarege.

Permalink to Comment

3. kieth on May 25, 2008 4:23 PM writes...

Derek, you have a good way of talking to other chemists without leaving the rest of us entirely blank. That was good. Comments are good too.

Permalink to Comment

4. Spooky on May 31, 2008 12:58 PM writes...

Were i can found an warez site or an torrent to download the movie :)

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