Journal of Biochemistry and Cell Biology
Open Access

Biophysical techniques; Molecular interactions; Surface plasmon resonance (SPR); Isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC); Fluorescence spectroscopy; Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)

Introduction

Molecular interactions are fundamental to the functioning of biological systems. Proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and other biomolecules interact with each other in a highly specific manner to drive essential processes such as signal transduction, enzymatic catalysis, immune response, and gene regulation [1]. To understand these interactions at a molecular level, it is crucial to employ techniques that can measure binding affinities, kinetics, thermodynamics, and structural features with high precision. Biophysical techniques provide the necessary tools for exploring these molecular interactions. Unlike purely chemical or biological approaches, biophysical methods leverage physical principles (such as light absorption, fluorescence, or magnetic fields) to gather data on molecular properties [2]. These techniques have become invaluable in fields like drug discovery, where understanding how a drug molecule binds to its target receptor or enzyme is central to the development of effective therapies. This guide introduces several prominent biophysical techniques, offering insights into their mechanisms, advantages, limitations, and applications in molecular interaction studies.

Surface plasmon resonance (SPR) is a real-time, label-free technique used to study molecular interactions [3]. It relies on the phenomenon of surface plasmon excitation, which occurs when polarized light strikes a metal surface under specific conditions, causing an oscillation of free electrons at the interface. The resonance condition is sensitive to changes in the refractive index near the sensor surface, which can be altered by the binding of molecules to immobilized ligands. SPR is widely used to measure the binding affinity, kinetics, and specificity of molecular interactions, particularly for protein-protein, protein-DNA, or protein-ligand interactions [4]. It can detect binding events in real-time, without the need for fluorescent or radioactive labels. This makes SPR particularly useful for studying weak or transient interactions and for high-throughput screening in drug discovery.

While SPR provides valuable kinetic data, it is limited by its requirement for one binding partner to be immobilized on a surface, which can introduce steric hindrance or alter the interaction. Additionally, SPR measures only changes in the refractive index, which may not always directly correlate with the thermodynamics of the interaction. Isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) is a technique used to directly measure the heat released or absorbed during a molecular binding event [5]. A small amount of one binding partner (e.g., a ligand) is titrated into a sample containing the other binding partner (e.g., a protein), and the resulting heat changes are monitored. The heat change is directly related to the binding thermodynamics, including the binding constant (K_d), enthalpy (ΔH), and entropy (ΔS).

Fluorescence spectroscopy involves the excitation of molecules by light at specific wavelengths, followed by the emission of light at longer wavelengths. The change in fluorescence intensity or wavelength upon molecular binding provides valuable information about the interaction. Fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) and fluorescence polarization (FP) are common techniques used to study molecular interactions. Fluorescence spectroscopy is highly sensitive and is used to study a wide range of molecular interactions, including protein folding, protein-ligand binding, and enzyme activity [6-8]. FRET is particularly useful for studying interactions between two fluorescently labeled molecules, while FP can be employed to study conformational changes in biomolecules.

Fluorescence-based methods can be affected by environmental factors such as pH, temperature, and ionic strength. Additionally, the need for labeling molecules with fluorescent tags can introduce steric hindrance or alter the interaction, especially in the case of large or flexible proteins. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy is a powerful technique used to study the structure and dynamics of biomolecules in solution. NMR detects the interaction of atomic nuclei with an external magnetic field, providing detailed information about molecular structure, dynamics, and interactions [9]. Two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) NMR techniques can be employed to analyze protein-ligand interactions at atomic resolution.

NMR is ideal for studying the structure and dynamics of proteins, nucleic acids, and protein-ligand complexes. It provides atomic-level details about molecular conformation, dynamic processes, and conformational changes upon ligand binding. NMR is widely used in structural biology and drug discovery for lead compound optimization and protein-ligand binding studies. NMR is typically limited to small- to medium-sized molecules (up to 50 kDa), as larger molecules present challenges in terms of spectral complexity and signal overlap. Additionally, NMR experiments can be time-consuming and require high concentrations of sample. In many cases, no single biophysical technique provides all the necessary information [10]. By combining different methods, researchers can obtain a more comprehensive understanding of molecular interactions. For example, ITC can provide thermodynamic data, while SPR can offer kinetic information, and NMR can reveal structural details of a binding event. The integration of these techniques is especially powerful in the context of drug discovery, where understanding the binding mechanism and optimizing lead compounds is critical.

Conclusion

Biophysical techniques are indispensable tools for studying molecular interactions. Techniques like SPR, ITC, fluorescence spectroscopy, and NMR provide unique and complementary insights into the kinetics, thermodynamics, and structural aspects of biomolecular interactions. By combining these methods, researchers can gain a more holistic understanding of molecular recognition, paving the way for advances in drug development, biomolecular engineering, and molecular diagnostics. Despite their individual limitations, the strategic application of these techniques continues to drive innovation in various fields of molecular biology, biotechnology, and pharmacology.

Acknowledgement

None

Conflict of Interest

None

References

1. Baralt L, Weitz TA (2012) The Komen–planned parenthood controversy: Bringing the politics of breast cancer advocacy to the forefront. Women’s Health Issues 22: 509-512.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Sabatino SA, White MC, Thompson TD, Klabunde NC (2015) Cancer screening test use: United States, 2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 64: 464-8.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

3. White A, Thompson TD, White MC, Sabatino SA, Moor JD, et al. (2017) Cancer Screening Test Use - United States, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 66: 201-206.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Horner-Johnson W, Dobbertin K, Andresen EM, Iezzoni LI (2014) Breast and cervical cancer screening disparities associated with disability severity. Women’s Health Issues 24: e147-53.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Fontana RS, Sanderson DR, Woolner LB, Taylor WF, Miller WE, et al. (1986) Lung cancer screening: the Mayo program. J Occup Med US 28:746-750.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Bob Roehr (2012) Charity's decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood sparks controversy. BMJ 344: e870.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Secretan BL, Loomis D, Straif K (2015) Breast-cancer screening-viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med 373: 1479.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Hamashima C, Shibuya D, Yamazaki H, Inoue K, Fukao A, et al. (2008) The Japanese guidelines for gastric cancer screening. Jpn J Clin Oncol 38: 259-267.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Horner-Johnson W, Dobbertin K, Iezzoni LI (2015) Disparities in receipt of breast and cervical cancer screening for rural women age 18 to 64 with disabilities. Women’s Health Issues 25: 246-53.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. McKinney SM, Sieniek M, Godbole V, Godwin J, Antropova N, et al. (2020). International evaluation of an AI system for breast cancer screening. Nature 577: 89-94.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref