Help with Hill Equn. needed

Tony Day tday at
Mon Nov 6 11:01:49 EST 1995

> >The data also fits Scatchard type eqn. which assumes one site, but not one
> >which assumes 2 sites or many.  The question I still have in my mind is
> >whether this apparent 1site (or 1 type of non-interacting sites) could
> >really be a non-specific binding leading to inactivation.
> >Tony
> If the addition of a "ligand" destabilizes the protein, i.e. lowers the
> then that ligand must bind to the unfolded form.  It seems reasonable
that this
> would be a non-specific binding.  Of course, one can always describe
binding in
> either site-specific or non-specific formalisms.  Look at the work on urea and
> GuHCl denaturation.

Unfortunately, this protein unfolds irreversibly, and has several
unfolding transitions visible in DSC.  So it is also possible that it
binds to a folded intermediate (or the fully folded form) and destabilises
that, rather than stabilising the unfolded form.  This still begs the
question, if the binding were non-specific, wouldn't the data be a poor
fit to a n=1 binding equn.?


More information about the Proteins mailing list