0
$\begingroup$

Drugs can be provided as a competive or non-competitive form of agonists. But the effect of non-competitive antagonists is much more than the other, so what is the cause of that? And are there some exceptions?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Personally, I think the statement "the effect of a competitive antagonist is less than the effect of a non-competitive antagonist" is too general to have much meaning. There's a large number of systems, each with a potentially large number of competitive and non-competitive antagonists, each with a potentially large range of activities. Saying a priori that a non-competitive antagonist is more effective than a competitive one is presumptuous.

However, there is a bit of sense in there, for a particular defined sense of circumstances.

By definition, a competitive antagonist is only active against the non-liganded state of the receptor. The native ligand (agonist) and the competitive antagonist compete for the receptor. In contrast, a non-competitive antagonist can generally work against both the liganded (with agonist bound) and ligand-free versions of the receptor. (How active it is against each depends on the particulars about the antagonist and receptor.)

So in a situation where the antagonist isn't at saturating concentrations (say at a concentration near it's IC50), saturating amounts of native ligand (agonist) will completely reverse the effects of a competitive antagonist, as the agonist will compete off the antagonist. However, the non-competitive antagonist will still have some remaining inhibitory function, even at saturating concentrations of native ligand, as it can bind to and inhibit the ligand-bound (agonist-bound) form of the receptor.

However, there's an apples-to-oranges comparison embedded in there. That comparison assumes that the competitive and non-competitive are each near their respective IC50s. This value can change greatly between drugs, so you can have a competitive inhibitor with a really low IC50, and a non-competitive inhibitor with a really high one, such that if you used identical molar concentrations of each antagonist, the competitive antagonist would be successful in almost completely shutting off receptor activity, whereas the non-competitive antagonist would show barely noticeable activity.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You said 'a non-competitive antagonist can generally work against both the liganded and ligand-free versions of the receptor' Do you mean by liganded version, the agonist binding site? Because in this movie at min. 3:43 is said the opposite: youtube.com/watch?v=7mJut-vVZRs $\endgroup$ – Marijn Mar 25 '16 at 18:56
  • $\begingroup$ @Marijn By "liganded" I meant "agonist-bound form". As your video indicates from 3:50-4:30, the non-competitive antagonist can be bound to (and be inhibitory towards) the receptor both in the presence and absence of agonist binding. $\endgroup$ – R.M. Mar 25 '16 at 19:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.