2005•Current Protein and Peptide ScienceRequires access

Mapping of the Active Site of Proteases in the 1960s and Rational Design of Inhibitors/Drugs in the 1990s

I. Schechter

Open publisher page 42 citations

Abstract

For several decades the specificity of proteases has been presented as an active site divided into subsites, using the nomenclature of Schechter & Berger from 1967 (S1, S2... for subsites of the active site; P1, P2... for residues of the substrate occupying the corresponding subsites). At early stages of the research (1960s) it was realized that the size of the active site was larger than expected and important interactions occur in regions remote from the catalytic site. Since the active site was found to be large it was divided into subsites, and a procedure to map it up was developed. The map provides information on the size of the active site (number of subsites), the properties of each subsite (free energy of ligand binding, nature of binding forces, etc.), and it enables rational design of new substrates and inhibitors. Already in 1968 inhibitors with binding constants ten thousand fold higher than available inhibitors, were prepared. The model of a large active site was initially met with strong opposition. Before long, however, predictions of the model (size of the active site, interactions in subsites remote from the catalytic site) were confirmed by X-ray crystallography (1970). During the 1990s proteolytic enzymes received renewed attention in biology and medicine, they became therapeutic targets, and protease inhibitors were successfully applied in the treatment of AIDS and hypertension. The model of large active site divided into subsites, proposed 38 years ago, stood the test of time. This model is still in use in basic research to evaluate enzyme activity, and in pharmaceutical research for the development of inhibitors/drugs.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

For several decades the specificity of proteases has been presented as an active site divided into subsites, using the nomenclature of Schechter & Berger from 1967 (S1, S2... for subsites of the active site; P1, P2... for residues of the substrate occupying the corresponding subsites). At early stages of the research (1960s) it was realized that the size of the active site was larger than expected and important interactions occur in regions remote from the catalytic site. Since the active site was found to be large it was divided into subsites, and a procedure to map it up was developed. The map provides information on the size of the active site (number of subsites), the properties of each subsite (free energy of ligand binding, nature of binding forces, etc.), and it enables rational design of new substrates and inhibitors. Already in 1968 inhibitors with binding constants ten thousand fold higher than available inhibitors, were prepared. The model of a large active site was initially met with strong opposition. Before long, however, predictions of the model (size of the active site, interactions in subsites remote from the catalytic site) were confirmed by X-ray crystallography (1970). During the 1990s proteolytic enzymes received renewed attention in biology and medicine, they became therapeutic targets, and protease inhibitors were successfully applied in the treatment of AIDS and hypertension. The model of large active site divided into subsites, proposed 38 years ago, stood the test of time. This model is still in use in basic research to evaluate enzyme activity, and in pharmaceutical research for the development of inhibitors/drugs.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 42 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

For several decades the specificity of proteases has been presented as an active site divided into subsites, using the nomenclature of Schechter & Berger from 1967 (S1, S2... for subsites of the active site; P1, P2... for residues of the substrate occupying the corresponding subsites). At early stages of the research (1960s) it was realized that the size of the active site was larger than expected and important interactions occur in regions remote from the catalytic site. Since the active site was found to be large it was divided into subsites, and a procedure to map it up was developed. The map provides information on the size of the active site (number of subsites), the properties of each subsite (free energy of ligand binding, nature of binding forces, etc.), and it enables rational design of new substrates and inhibitors. Already in 1968 inhibitors with binding constants ten thousand fold higher than available inhibitors, were prepared. The model of a large active site was initially met with strong opposition. Before long, however, predictions of the model (size of the active site, interactions in subsites remote from the catalytic site) were confirmed by X-ray crystallography (1970). During the 1990s proteolytic enzymes received renewed attention in biology and medicine, they became therapeutic targets, and protease inhibitors were successfully applied in the treatment of AIDS and hypertension. The model of large active site divided into subsites, proposed 38 years ago, stood the test of time. This model is still in use in basic research to evaluate enzyme activity, and in pharmaceutical research for the development of inhibitors/drugs.

Key concepts: Active site, Binding site, Rational design, Proteases, Stereochemistry, Chemistry, Active compound, Enzyme

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Mapping of the Active Site of Proteases in the 1960s and Rational Design of Inhibitors/Drugs in the 1990s — Research Paper | ScholarLens