ライフサイエンスコーパス: negative cooperativity

1 e equivalent and independent (no positive or negative cooperativity).

2 nges that precluded additional interactions (negative cooperativity).

3 ty, and drug binding within the dimer (i.e., negative cooperativity).

4 tide symmetry consistent with the absence of negative cooperativity.

5 to a lower binding affinity and the observed negative cooperativity.

6 nt binding can exhibit positive, neutral, or negative cooperativity.

7 y for binding of the second ligand, and thus negative cooperativity.

8 domain mediates the allostery underlying the negative cooperativity.

9 and K(2) = 3.1 x 10(6) M(-1), indicative of negative cooperativity.

10 and binding to subsequent sites occurs with negative cooperativity.

11 e of high- and low-affinity binding sites or negative cooperativity.

12 receptor monomers, but are not necessary for negative cooperativity.

13 binds cofactor via a sequential model, with negative cooperativity.

14 opulations of intermediates, consistent with negative cooperativity.

15 y would be that the two substrates bind with negative cooperativity.

16 the filling of only one ring owing to strong negative cooperativity.

17 ude less tightly at another site, suggesting negative cooperativity.

18 a Hill coefficient of 0.7+/-0.1, indicating negative cooperativity.

19 h- and low-affinity subunits in the dimer or negative cooperativity.

20 the R39Q mutant with cis,cis-muconate showed negative cooperativity.

21 suggesting that pathway activation involves negative cooperativity.

22 insulin) without disproportionate changes in negative cooperativity.

23 sites occurs without substantial positive or negative cooperativity.

24 g region 2 loop of the Vbeta domain, exhibit negative cooperativity.

25 icating that part of this shortfall reflects negative cooperativity.

26 yzed, all of which lead to the conclusion of negative cooperativity.

27 minobenzyl-DTPA were biphasic, indicative of negative cooperativity.

28 rative) kinetics, positive cooperativity, or negative cooperativity.

29 interaction actually occurs with significant negative cooperativity.

30 inds sequentially two molecules of cAMP with negative cooperativity.

31 irectly bind at least two ATP molecules with negative cooperativity.

32 rial domains of the two rings, the source of negative cooperativity.

33 coli displays elements of both positive and negative cooperativity.

34 comparable affinity linked by a mechanism of negative cooperativity.

35 or NPr (2 and 10 microM) possibly because of negative cooperativity.

36 GroES ring can bind to GroEL weakly and with negative cooperativity.

37 table in the S68D mutant, an extreme form of negative cooperativity.

38 ing and suggested that binding occurred with negative cooperativity.

39 ATP hydrolysis exhibits both positive and negative cooperativity.

40 Nups, with the binding behaviour defined by negative cooperativity.

41 nd K(d2) = 41-160 nM, consistent with strong negative cooperativity.

42 binding is entropically driven and displays negative cooperativity.

43 inity than the substrate, apo-ACPP, and with negative cooperativity.

44 e function as a novel facility emerging from negative cooperativity.

45 -fold increase in affinity while maintaining negative cooperativity.

46 half-the-sites reactive", which is a form of negative cooperativity.

47 in two di-metal binding sites that bind with negative cooperativity.

48 (perhaps along with other factors) for this negative cooperativity.

49 ence of both NVP and MgATP indicate a strong negative cooperativity.

50 1 phosphorylation of IRF3 and SIKE displayed negative cooperativity.

51 thermodynamics, producing either positive or negative cooperativity.

52 ylation that may be mistakenly attributed to negative cooperativity.

53 This study suggests that negative cooperativity across a beta1-adrenoceptor homod

54 spatially distinct sites, with mutual, weak negative cooperativity (allosteric inhibition) between t

55 The data showed strong negative cooperativity (alpha = 0.01-0.05) of 1 toward c

56 merase GmhA displays homotropic positive and negative cooperativity among its four protomers.

57 a of a wild-type aspartate receptor that has negative cooperativity and a mutant that has no cooperat

58 xamide (11d), which displayed both increased negative cooperativity and affinity for the D2R.

59 The hexamer exhibits positive and negative cooperativity and apparent half-site binding ac

60 The positive and negative cooperativity and apparent half-site reactivity

61 y a model in which STIM1 binds to Orai1 with negative cooperativity and channels open with positive c

62 film thickness; the binding isotherms showed negative cooperativity and could all be mapped onto a si

63 analyses reveal the molecular origin for the negative cooperativity and explain the substrate specifi

64 ental data, a unified model for the apparent negative cooperativity and fumarate activation of DbetaM

65 The observed increasing negative cooperativity and gradient of decreasing microa

66 losteric protein which displays positive and negative cooperativity and half-site reactivity that is

67 metric domain arrangements are not linked to negative cooperativity and hemiphosphorylation.

68 ture provides a rationale for the receptor's negative cooperativity and necessitates a reconsideratio

69 urves were approximately 0.58, indicative of negative cooperativity and possible multiple spermine in

70 binds IgE resident on the cell surface with negative cooperativity; and that 23G3 appears to induce

71 r the site-site interactions which result in negative cooperativity are proposed on the basis of the

72 ens as a function of loading, as a result of negative cooperativity arising from electronic effects w

73 significantly diminished (400-fold), and the negative cooperativity associated with its binding is lo

74 Consistent with negative cooperativity, asymmetry of the resulting compl

75 ed by decline in Hill slope, suggesting that negative cooperativity at ascending dose might underlie

76 xpenditure or from a mixture of positive and negative cooperativity at distinct genomic loci.

77 AtOASS binding of the C10 peptide displays negative cooperativity at higher temperatures.

78 However, this chimera retained the negative cooperativity between alcuronium and the classi

79 hese observations, we suggest that UvrA uses negative cooperativity between its ATPase sites that is

80 re of the protein, i.e. it shows positive or negative cooperativity between ligand binding and the re

81 We observed both positive and negative cooperativity between multiple bonds depending

82 anism (positive cooperativity within a ring, negative cooperativity between rings) is shown to be bas

83 ntrinsic affinity for ssDNA and enhances the negative cooperativity between ssDNA binding sites, indi

84 indrances to receptor isolation-for example, negative cooperativity between sterically hindered funct

85 reaction at the substrate binding site, with negative cooperativity between subunits accounting for t

86 ains independently, shows the existence of a negative cooperativity between the D1 and D2 rings and t

87 rom the allosteric substrate protein-induced negative cooperativity between the GroEL rings involves

88 The negative cooperativity between the rings in the R''-->T

89 In contrast, there is negative cooperativity between the rings, so that they a

90 The different binding constants indicate negative cooperativity between the subunits; the asymmet

91 demonstrate that dimeric vSET operates with negative cooperativity between the two active sites and

92 Despite biochemical evidence for negative cooperativity between the two active sites of t

93 study the mechanism of allostery underlying negative cooperativity between the two agonists glutamat

94 he relative rotation mode also explained the negative cooperativity between the two binding pockets.

95 both sides of the membrane shows substantial negative cooperativity between the two blocking sites.

96 s within one heptameric ring of GroEL, while negative cooperativity between the two rings generates a

97 Analyses of metal-binding affinities reveals negative cooperativity between the two site 2 binding ev

98 losteric communication between T3 and 9c and negative cooperativity between their binding pockets.

99 Binding of NADPH displays negative cooperativity, binding of either folate or dihy

100 f catalytic sites for MgATP do not represent negative cooperativity, but rather represent heterogeneo

101 o lessen the degree of both the positive and negative cooperativity, but the cause of this effect was

102 Substrate protein suppresses negative cooperativity by decreasing the affinity of the

103 on of SG assembly arises through positive or negative cooperativity by extrinsic G3BP1-binding factor

104 lent character of the linker histone and the negative cooperativity by which linker histone and super

105 2 complexes are approximately equal, and the negative cooperativity can be attributed to faster disso

106 Negative cooperativity can make a multimeric receptor's

107 y additive fashion, but apparent positive or negative cooperativity characterized several putative Cr

108 nts were close to 0.5, the highest degree of negative cooperativity commonly observed (although small

109 statistical support for the existence of two negative cooperativity constants, one linking protonatio

110 The calculated negative cooperativities cover a narrow range, in sharp

111 inding of the inverse agonist SR141716A with negative cooperativity, demonstrated via radioligand bin

112 displayed pH and fumarate-dependent apparent negative cooperativity demonstrating that the previously

113 CBP-pRb interactions have either positive or negative cooperativity, depending on the available E1A i

114 Such negative cooperativity did not occur with TSHR ECD-GPI-e

115 roteins have been recently proposed in which negative cooperativity due to area exclusion by adsorbat

116 itrosated in a single step but is subject to negative cooperativity due to steric hindrance at the di

117 trate inhibition during nitrite turnover and negative cooperativity during hydroxylamine turnover, ne

118 mulated dissociation of prebound (125)I-TSH (negative cooperativity; EC(50)=70 mU/ml), which requires

119 ion in a given porphycene, with positive and negative cooperativity effects.

120 ow-affinity, uric acid-binding site and that negative cooperativity exists between homologous, high-a

121 potencies, compounds exhibit differences in negative cooperativity for agonist-mediated calcium mobi

122 We discern positive and negative cooperativity for Aurora A kinase (AurA) and Ab

123 o do not display the dramatic intra-tetramer negative cooperativity for binding of a second (dT)(35)

124 th modulation of the global normal modes and negative cooperativity for binding the second cAMP ligan

125 binary enzyme-NAD(+) complex is the apparent negative cooperativity for binding to the tetramer with

126 Such a mechanism requires the extreme negative cooperativity for DNA binding to the second sub

127 This indicates negative cooperativity for ligand binding between subuni

128 PAMs Ro67-4853 and CPPHA displayed apparent negative cooperativity for modulation of quisqualate aff

129 ity binding to every other T-T mismatch with negative cooperativity for proximal T-T mismatches.

130 atic cycle, the kinase exhibits positive and negative cooperativity for substrate and nucleotide bind

131 nd found that Par-3 and Cdc42 exhibit strong negative cooperativity for the Par complex.

132 used to evaluate the thermodynamic origin of negative cooperativity for this series of guests, reveal

133 rst C60 molecule, in good agreement with the negative cooperativity found in these systems.

134 n IC50 value of 382 +/- 23 nM, and exhibited negative cooperativity (Hill coefficient, 0.27).

135 K(+) concentration, folding with no or even negative cooperativity (Hill coefficients </=1), and are

136 N and ATP with NMAT were observed to exhibit negative cooperativity, i.e. Hill coefficients <1.0.

137 NA)-gold nanoparticle conjugates occurs with negative cooperativity; i.e., each binding event destabi

138 Furthermore, the two ATP binding sites show negative cooperativity; i.e., nucleotides do not bind in

139 th the R39Q mutant, cis, cis-muconate showed negative cooperativity in active site binding with two K

140 n best be described by a model that involves negative cooperativity in an aggregating system.

141 be completely explained by a model involving negative cooperativity in an aggregating system.

142 Subunits showed negative cooperativity in ATP binding and positive coope

143 selectivity for ATP driving motor rotation, negative cooperativity in ATP hydrolysis, and the energe

144 Negative cooperativity in binding is supported by the re

145 has uncovered evidence for both positive and negative cooperativity in cAMP binding(2,3), but such bu

146 dependent, and MMPIP exhibits differences in negative cooperativity in certain cellular backgrounds.

147 cMazE, which are also responsible for strong negative cooperativity in EcMazE-EcMazF binding.

148 g the loop entirely led to a decrease in the negative cooperativity in EGF binding and was associated

149 Negative cooperativity in enzyme reactions, in which the

150 dentified elements that could play a role in negative cooperativity in GSTs.

151 Our study identifies a source of the negative cooperativity in IGF1 binding to IGF1R and reve

152 tes, unlike mammalian PNPs which demonstrate negative cooperativity in ImmH binding.

153 underscore the pharmacological importance of negative cooperativity in ligand binding within TR:RXR h

154 genic mutations and the structural basis for negative cooperativity in ligand binding.

155 125)I-PMP-BSA/receptor complexes, suggesting negative cooperativity in multivalent ligand binding and

156 ate binding and may suggest the existence of negative cooperativity in MUR1 function.

157 ition, this study also provides evidence for negative cooperativity in NADH binding and for at least

158 e binding but, rather, the substrate-induced negative cooperativity in protein orientation that accom

159 of nZ of < 1 was interpreted as evidence for negative cooperativity in spermine binding to d(CA/TG) d

160 Significantly, we observe an apparent strong negative cooperativity in ssDNA binding between relaxase

161 GCT from Bacillus subtilis displays unusual negative cooperativity in substrate binding and appears

162 le bound in the biological dimer, supporting negative cooperativity in substrate binding.

163 inding of the first two serine molecules and negative cooperativity in the binding of the last two se

164 hes the intrinsic affinity and increases the negative cooperativity in the cofactor binding to the he

165 This indicates that the inter-ring negative cooperativity in the double-ring GroEL has a ma

166 Negative cooperativity in the double-ringed system is al

167 n plays a significant role in the genesis of negative cooperativity in the EGF receptor.

168 tic evidence, the proposal that the apparent negative cooperativity in the interaction of ascorbic ac

169 The present study also shows negative cooperativity in the ITC binding data of asialo

170 Negative cooperativity in the kinetic response of MtPPAT

171 Here we show that negative cooperativity in the rate-determining step in t

172 inearities (rate enhancement, switching, and negative cooperativity) in how the receptor participates

173 recognition domains of the gal-1 dimer with negative cooperativity, in that the first lactose molecu

174 Lysine binding exhibits negative cooperativity, indicating cross-talk between th

175 d and unphosphorylated EGF receptors exhibit negative cooperativity, indicating that mechanistically,

176 fied nucleotides is characterized by similar negative cooperativity, indicating that negative coopera

177 tetrahydroquinoline compounds, which showed negative cooperativities instead.

178 al results suggest mechanisms for inter-ring-negative cooperativity, intra-ring-positive cooperativit

179 The Hill coefficient for this negative cooperativity is 0.9.

180 II chaperonins, these observations show that negative cooperativity is a common feature of all chaper

181 Negative cooperativity is a phenomenon in which the bind

182 In contrast, negative cooperativity is manifested by alterations in b

183 nucleotide binding domain interface, and the negative cooperativity is mediated across the regulatory

184 lso been found to be superadditive, and this negative cooperativity is now shown to extend to the nei

185 Negative cooperativity is observed between the binding o

186 Negative cooperativity is observed in the wild-type rece

187 This negative cooperativity is often correlated with an asymm

188 we studied 16 different GSTs, revealing that negative cooperativity is present only in more recently

189 Finally, a possible structural mechanism for negative cooperativity is presented.

190 assic allostery is not involved and that the negative cooperativity is probably the consequence of a

191 in both TTR binding sites without the usual negative cooperativity, is therefore of interest.

192 When the lattice has negative cooperativity, its properties mimic those of a

193 Tafamidis binds selectively and with negative cooperativity (K(d)s ~2 nM and ~200 nM) to the

194 metry shows that genistein binds to TTR with negative cooperativity (K(d1) = 40 nM, K(d2) = 1.4 micro

195 inant and native channels showed substantial negative cooperativity (kappa = 0.27).

196 the data are globally fit with a two-branch negative-cooperativity kinetic model in which ET in one-

197 -tRNA synthetase displays an extreme form of negative cooperativity, known as "half-of-the-sites reac

198 -Cys(593) disulfide bond resulted in extreme negative cooperativity, ligand-independent kinase activi

199 ors, including bistability and oscillations, negative cooperativity may be an important ingredient in

200 te binding of isocitrate, but that a form of negative cooperativity may limit access to apparently eq

201 the dimer asymmetric and implying an extreme negative cooperativity mechanism.

202 also a strong inhibitor of GSTs, we suggest negative cooperativity might have evolved to maintain a

203 h estrogen receptor (ER) thus validating the negative cooperativity model for an established function

204 esence of 5 mm ATP, the ATPase showed strong negative cooperativity (n(H) = 0.16 +/- 0.03) for Na(+)

205 variants exhibiting positive, nH > 1.0, and negative cooperativity, nH < 1.0.

206 The negative cooperativity observed in B. anthracis NMAT sub

207 netheless, both the positive linkage and the negative cooperativity observed in EGF binding require t

208 bservation that could also contribute to the negative cooperativity observed.

209 Negative cooperativity occurs in human glutathione trans

210 We think that the negative cooperativity occurs when saturation of actin f

211 ed for by a Markov state model that includes negative cooperativity of agonist binding to unsensitize

212 uents were important to maintain the limited negative cooperativity of analogues of 1, and replacemen

213 ed dynamic exchange processes underlying the negative cooperativity of binding of "monovalent" ligand

214 binding of serine at one interface leads to negative cooperativity of binding of a subsequent serine

215 Biotinylated DNA showed strong negative cooperativity of binding to cis-divalent but no

216 These results suggest that the apparent negative cooperativity of binding to the two ssDNA bindi

217 This negative cooperativity of binding was also seen when a c

218 and a significant reduction in the apparent negative cooperativity of binding, relative to wild-type

219 6-porphyrin nanoring, in keeping with their negative cooperativity of binding.

220 greeing with previous reports explaining the negative cooperativity of cAMP binding in terms of an en

221 ted as playing a critical role in modulating negative cooperativity of cyclic nucleotide binding.

222 negative cooperativity of substrate binding, negative cooperativity of enzyme activity was not observ

223 Such complexes fail to rationalize negative cooperativity of epidermal growth factor (EGF)

224 activity of SR-BI but does not influence the negative cooperativity of HDL binding.

225 und and a lessening of both the positive and negative cooperativity of inhibitor binding as compared

226 consistent with the experimentally measured negative cooperativity of ketamine binding to GLIC.

227 Bs, and establish a molecular basis for both negative cooperativity of ligand binding to vertebrate E

228 irmed by our kinetic analysis that shows the negative cooperativity of mGSTA4-4 for 4-HNE.

229 he current concepts of unisite catalysis and negative cooperativity of nucleotide binding will be nec

230 Furthermore, the increasing negative cooperativity of SBA binding to Tn-PSM correlat

231 It is not negative cooperativity of substrate binding but, rather,

232 Despite the pronounced negative cooperativity of substrate binding, negative co

233 nc site, which collectively drive homotropic negative cooperativity of Zn(2+) binding (Delta(DeltaG)

234 94 dimer, a model for allosteric regulation (negative cooperativity) of ligand binding is proposed.

235 lude the notion that NCNs require regions of negative cooperativity, or "frustrated" noncovalent inte

236 ng sites on each TfR polypeptide chain, from negative cooperativity, or from a combination of both.

237 to the DnaB hexamer is characterized by the negative cooperativity parameter sigma=0.25(+/-0.1).

238 of HemAT suggest that asymmetry and apparent negative cooperativity play an important role in the sig

239 between dimers is fully compatible with the negative cooperativity previously observed between the t

240 oupling between the structural asymmetry and negative cooperativity previously proposed for CK is not

241 preciably depleted by receptor binding, then negative cooperativity produces a qualitatively differen

242 7 +/- 1), in contrast to the apparent strong negative cooperativity reported previously.

243 nduced reduction in ligand binding affinity (negative cooperativity) requires TSH receptor (TSHR) hom

244 d up to three molecules of FimH, albeit with negative cooperativity, so that a molar excess of access

245 n liver alcohol dehydrogenase gamma exhibits negative cooperativity (substrate activation) with ethan

246 es the cognate ATP/GTP substrate pair, while negative-cooperativity suppresses Mn2+ utilization by ei

247 g is characterized by significantly stronger negative cooperativity than ADP.

248 binding sites in the tetramer such that the negative cooperativity that is originally manifest at on

249 eir binding sites and is responsible for the negative cooperativity that underlies Par complex polari

250 of NADPH to precede loss of the product H4F (negative cooperativity), the mutants can reenter the cat

251 easing the affinity of CAP for cAMP enhances negative cooperativity through an entropic penalty for l

252 tants (ATP and peptide substrates) bind with negative cooperativity to Src kinase while products (ADP

253 factor Zur requires Zn(II), which binds with negative cooperativity to two regulatory sites per dimer

254 itrate dependence from sigmoidal, displaying negative cooperativity, to hyperbolic.

255 It showed negative cooperativity towards bicarbonate at 70 degrees

256 CAP displays negative cooperativity upon association with two identic

257 lectin concanavalin A (ConA) show increasing negative cooperativity upon binding of the analogues to

258 gent slopes below 1.0, indicating increasing negative cooperativity upon binding of the analogues to

259 Negative cooperativity was also found between the S1 and

260 The negative cooperativity was associated with the decreasin

261 To test the role of the TMD in negative cooperativity, we studied the TSHR ECD tethered

262 Quantitative mappings of positive and then negative cooperativity were obtained by fitting the resu

263 ion of RAF dimers is limited by induction of negative cooperativity when bound to one site in the dim

264 als collisions, we have found a significant "negative cooperativity" when the two classes of compound

265 Dimers exhibit negative cooperativity whereas tetramers exhibit positiv

266 e-sensitive high-affinity state and exhibits negative cooperativity, whereas the monomeric receptor i

267 ation in biochemical assays in vitro suggest negative cooperativity, whereby phosphorylation in one p

268 The system is well-known to exhibit negative cooperativity, whereby the binding of one cAMP

269 ty of the native structure by overcoming the negative cooperativity which is typical of monovalent st

270 nalysis of the raw ITC data shows increasing negative cooperativity, which correlates with an increas

271 do not reveal the structural origin of this negative cooperativity, which has remained unclear.

272 Tetrameric L1 shows negative cooperativity, which is not present in either t

273 es are important for functional affinity and negative cooperativity, while functionalization of the t

274 ts by mutating the R69 residues released the negative cooperativity with 4-HNE.

275 d various patterns of positive, neutral, and negative cooperativity with [3H]NMS and acetylcholine, b

276 a compound showing positive, neutral, or low negative cooperativity with acetylcholine may yield comp

277 Cmpd-15 exhibits negative cooperativity with agonists and positive cooper

278 The fourth binding step shows a weak negative cooperativity with an affinity one-half that of

279 /- 0.2, while the ionization of Pro-1 showed negative cooperativity with an apparent pK(a) of 7.1 +/-

280 in functional affinity, as well as enhanced negative cooperativity with dopamine affinity and effica

281 In contrast, ML375 displayed negative cooperativity with each of the agonists in a ma

282 n a manner that correlated with efficacy but negative cooperativity with inverse agonists.

283 e that maintains low muM affinity and robust negative cooperativity with markedly improved ligand eff

284 studies have revealed the first evidence for negative cooperativity with respect to bicarbonate and s

285 ke GDH from bacteria, mammalian GDH exhibits negative cooperativity with respect to coenzyme, activat

286 nducing an entirely entropic (nonmechanical) negative cooperativity with respect to substrate binding

287 pe selectivity: an agent showing positive or negative cooperativity with the endogenous ligand at one

288 by isothermal titration calorimetry reveals negative cooperativity with three distinct binding event

289 But due to negative cooperativity within the dimer, only one groove

290 cooperative copper binding, with evidence of negative cooperativity within the octarepeat region.