Principles
The Cheng-Prusoff relationship: something lost in the translation

https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-6147(93)90070-ZGet rights and content

Abstract

For a variety of reasons, pharmacologists often construct ‘inhibition curves’ to evaluate antagonists rather than employing the more comprehensive ‘Schild analysis’. There is a widespread perception that it is only possible to derive antagonist Kb, values from such experiments via application of the Cheng-Prusoff equation, requiring knowledge of the agonist affinity at the receptor. In this article, Douglas Craig presents a practical examination of ‘inhibition curve’ methodology and demonstrates that it is a related equation requiring no knowledge of agonist affinity, rather than the Cheng-Prusoff equation, that affords theoretically valid estimates of antagonist Kbvalues from this technique.

References (7)

  • R.M. Eglen et al.

    Life Sci.

    (1989)
  • R.F. Furchgott
  • O. Arunlakshana et al.

    Br. J. Pharmacol.

    (1959)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (128)

  • Convergent cross-species pro-cognitive effects of RGH-235, a new potent and selective histamine H<inf>3</inf> receptor antagonist/inverse agonist

    2022, European Journal of Pharmacology
    Citation Excerpt :

    Receptor binding isotherms and concentration/dose-response curves were analysed by nonlinear regression using Origin 6.0 (OriginLab Corp., Northampton, MA), Prism 5.0 (GraphPad Software Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA) or Statistica 8 (Dell) software; all programs gave identical results. From the IC50 values, inhibition constants (Ki) were calculated by the Cheng-Prusoff equation (Cheng and Prusoff, 1973); antagonist affinity (KB) values were calculated according to the formula described by Craig (1993). For [35S] GTPγS binding, raw data were first converted to specific binding, then stimulation % above basal values.

  • Models for Lead Optimization

    2022, Comprehensive Pharmacology
  • Exploration of the molecular architecture of the orthosteric binding site in the α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor with analogs of 3-(dimethylamino)butyl dimethylcarbamate (DMABC) and 1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1,4-diazepane

    2015, European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
    Citation Excerpt :

    Data from the binding experiments were fitted to the equation % Bound = 100% Bound/(1+([L]/IC50)n). Since the concentrations of [3H]epibatidine used in the binding experiments were lower than the KD values determined for the radioligands the respective receptors, it was deduced from the Cheng–Prusoff equation [44] that the Ki values for the compounds were similar to the obtained IC50 values. The concentration-response curves for agonists and concentration–inhibition curves for antagonists in the FLIPR Membrane Potential Blue assay were constructed based on the differences in the fluorescence units (△FU) between the maximal fluorescence levels recorded before and after addition of eight different concentrations of the various ligands.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text