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

4 and binding to subsequent sites occurs with negative cooperativity.

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

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

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

8 opulations of intermediates, consistent with negative cooperativity.

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

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

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

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

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

14 suggesting that pathway activation involves negative cooperativity.

15 insulin) without disproportionate changes in negative cooperativity.

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

17 sites occurs without substantial positive or negative cooperativity.

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

19 icating that part of this shortfall reflects negative cooperativity.

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

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

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

23 interaction actually occurs with significant negative cooperativity.

24 inds sequentially two molecules of cAMP with negative cooperativity.

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

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

27 coli displays elements of both positive and negative cooperativity.

28 comparable affinity linked by a mechanism of negative cooperativity.

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

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

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

32 ing and suggested that binding occurred with negative cooperativity.

33 -fold increase in affinity while maintaining negative cooperativity.

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

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

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

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

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

39 1 phosphorylation of IRF3 and SIKE displayed negative cooperativity.

40 thermodynamics, producing either positive or negative cooperativity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

56 The observed increasing negative cooperativity and gradient of decreasing microa

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

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

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

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

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

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

63 Consistent with negative cooperativity, asymmetry of the resulting compl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

89 Negative cooperativity can make a multimeric receptor's

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

108 This indicates negative cooperativity for ligand binding between subuni

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

120 Subunits showed negative cooperativity in ATP binding and positive coope

121 Negative cooperativity in binding is supported by the re

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

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

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

125 Negative cooperativity in enzyme reactions, in which the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

141 Negative cooperativity in the double-ringed system is al

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

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

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

145 Negative cooperativity in the kinetic response of MtPPAT

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

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

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

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

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

151 tetrahydroquinoline compounds, which showed negative cooperativities instead.

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

153 The Hill coefficient for this negative cooperativity is 0.9.

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

155 Negative cooperativity is a phenomenon in which the bind

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

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

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

159 Negative cooperativity is observed between the binding o

160 Negative cooperativity is observed in the wild-type rece

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

178 The negative cooperativity observed in B. anthracis NMAT sub

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

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

181 Negative cooperativity occurs in human glutathione trans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

203 94 dimer, a model for allosteric regulation (negative cooperativity) of ligand binding is proposed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

220 It showed negative cooperativity towards bicarbonate at 70 degrees

221 CAP displays negative cooperativity upon association with two identic

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

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

224 Negative cooperativity was also found between the S1 and

225 The negative cooperativity was associated with the decreasin

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

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

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

229 Dimers exhibit negative cooperativity whereas tetramers exhibit positiv

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

240 /- 0.2, while the ionization of Pro-1 showed negative cooperativity with an apparent pK(a) of 7.1 +/-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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