3
$\begingroup$

I learned competitive inhibition and non-competitive inhibition.

My teacher told me that we should say that non-competitive inhibitors bind to somewhere on the enzyme apart from active sites.

I thought 'somewhere on the enzyme apart from active sites' refers to allosteric site. Because allosteric means changing shape and non-competitive inhibitors do change the tertiary structure of enzymes. However my teacher said this is wrong -- non-competitive inhibitors do bind to allosteric sites but they also bind to some other sites as long as they don't bind to active sites.

So, I am wondering, apart from allosteric sites, where else can non-competitive bind to? Or, is my teacher wrong?

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think your teacher is more than a little mixed up. A competitive inhibitor, for example, can bind to an allosteric site (and not to the active site at all): all that is required is that the binding of the inhibitor prevents the substrate from binding to the active site. See part (e) of this diagram, for example. My thoughts on such issues are recorded here, and I won't rehash them. But IH Segel is excellent on (reversible) enz inhibition (quoted in the above ref) $\endgroup$
    – user338907
    Commented Nov 11, 2021 at 19:05
  • $\begingroup$ The fact that a competitive inhibitor need not at all resemble the structure of the substrate is one of the things that so impressed Monod $\endgroup$
    – user338907
    Commented Nov 11, 2021 at 19:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Does this answer your question? Identifying type of inhibitor from $K_m$ and $V_{max}$ $\endgroup$
    – MattDMo
    Commented Nov 13, 2021 at 20:03
  • $\begingroup$ @user338907 that is an answer! Very well done. $\endgroup$
    – MattDMo
    Commented Nov 13, 2021 at 20:04

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

Here is a helpful excerpt from the lecture notes for Introduction to Molecular and Cellular Biology at Columbia University, taught by Lawrence Chasin and Deborah Mowshowitz (emphasis mine):

Re: noncompetitive vs. allosteric inhibition: noncompetitive inhibitors bind to a site other than the active site and render the enzyme ineffective. Allosteric inhibitors do the same thing. So, how are they different? And, in what way can we apply the Michaelis-Menton equation to our understanding of allosteric inhibitors? For instance, can we quantify what happens with the presence of an allosteric inhibitor, or do we just have a qualitative understanding?

I agree that at a simple mechanistic level non-competitive and allosteric inhibition appear the same. There are several differences, however. Allosteric inhibition generally acts by switching the enzyme between two alternative states, an active form and an inactive form. It usually works by binding to a sites in a specialized subunit of a mutimeric protein, and thus binds at several sites. The more inhibitor that binds, the more then can bind, and vice versa with substrate. The kinetics are thus complicated, being cooperative, and non-Michaelis Menton, and are beyond the scope of this course. So a qualitative understanding is all that is called for here. Allosteric inhibition is designed into the proteins and represents an important physiological process. Noncompetitive inhibiton is more of a catch-all for non-physiological inhibition that does not compete with substrate for substrate binding to enzyme. In that, it is defined (and named) from a negative point of view. As described in your texts, a non-competive inhibitor may bind to a non-substrate site on a protein and distort it to the point of non-functionality, and adding more substrate will not alleviate this inhibition. Or, as in the example I used in lecture, it may simply block a catalytic site without interfering with substrate binding, an example that is more distinct from allosteric inhibition.

In addition, note that an allosteric inhibitor may display alternative kinetics in reference to substrate binding, as described in this NIH guide:

An allosteric inhibitor decreases activity by binding to an allosteric site, other than or in addition to the active site on the target. This interaction is characterized by a conformational change in the target enzyme that is required for inhibition. These conformational changes can affect the formation of the usual enzyme-substrate active site complex, stabilization of the transition state, or reduce the ability to lower the activation energy of catalysis. Figure 1e and Figure 2a are classical examples of allosteric inhibition. As such, an allosteric inhibitor may display a competitive, noncompetitive, or uncompetitive phenotype with respect to substrate binding.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ (+1) I think the first part of your answer and the last part are using two very different definitions of 'non-competitive inhibition'. The NIH site (which I agree with) distinguishes between competitive, uncompetitive and non-competitive inhibition. C and Mowshowitz seem to be unaware of uncompetitive inhibition and use the term 'non-competitive in a archaic way to cover everything that is not competitive. But even working within the (correct) NIH definition, there is a problem: what Cleland and his school refer to as 'non-competitive', European kineticists tend to call 'mixed inhibition' $\endgroup$
    – user338907
    Commented Nov 11, 2021 at 19:36
  • $\begingroup$ For Cleland, see Enzyme Kinetics and Mechanism $\endgroup$
    – user338907
    Commented Nov 11, 2021 at 19:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I hate to sound naive, but I always thought that the active site of an enzyme encompassed both the substrate-binding site and the catalytic residues. So if an agent inhibits an enzyme by irreversibly chemically modifying a catalytic residue, it would seem to be both non-competitive and acting at the active site. Of coarse it is crass stupidity teaching this stuff about inhibitors to school children (and most undergraduates) when the emphasis should be teaching them what we know about catalysis and it’s regulation. I prefer to talk about poisons and regulators. $\endgroup$
    – David
    Commented Nov 11, 2021 at 23:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @David couldn't agree more. Putting hard semantic borders around scientific concepts often just leads to confusion when students (inevitably) find exceptions to the definitions. An archetypal question on this site seems to be "My professor said X is the case, but my textbook argues Y. What's true?" $\endgroup$
    – acvill
    Commented Nov 12, 2021 at 0:39
  • $\begingroup$ @user338907 it seems you have thought this through more than I have. Indeed, this is a concept that I've always found a tad confusing myself. My personal understanding of allosteric regulation has always been that allosteric factors tend to be endogenously-produced regulators with concomitant sites for activity, whereas "noncompetitive" regulators can be exogenous factors or poisons. Though my understanding certainly has its flaws $\endgroup$
    – acvill
    Commented Nov 12, 2021 at 0:47

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .