 Research
 Open Access
Saturation Behavior: a general relationship described by a simple secondorder differential equation
 Gordon R Kepner^{1}Email author
https://doi.org/10.1186/17424682711
© Kepner; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010
 Received: 25 March 2010
 Accepted: 13 April 2010
 Published: 13 April 2010
Abstract
Background
The numerous natural phenomena that exhibit saturation behavior, e.g., ligand binding and enzyme kinetics, have been approached, to date, via empirical and particular analyses. This paper presents a mechanismfree, and assumptionfree, secondorder differential equation, designed only to describe a typical relationship between the variables governing these phenomena. It develops a mathematical model for this relation, based solely on the analysis of the typical experimental data plot and its saturation characteristics. Its utility complements the traditional empirical approaches.
Results
For the general saturation curve, described in terms of its independent (x) and dependent (y) variables, a secondorder differential equation is obtained that applies to any saturation phenomena. It shows that the driving factor for the basic saturation behavior is the probability of the interactive site being free, which is described quantitatively. Solving the equation relates the variables in terms of the two empirical constants common to all these phenomena, the initial slope of the data plot and the limiting value at saturation. A firstorder differential equation for the slope emerged that led to the concept of the effective binding rate at the active site and its dependence on the calculable probability the interactive site is free. These results are illustrated using specific cases, including ligand binding and enzyme kinetics. This leads to a revised understanding of how to interpret the empirical constants, in terms of the variables pertinent to the phenomenon under study.
Conclusions
The secondorder differential equation revealed the basic underlying relations that describe these saturation phenomena, and the basic mathematical properties of the standard experimental data plot. It was shown how to integrate this differential equation, and define the common basic properties of these phenomena. The results regarding the importance of the slope and the new perspectives on the empirical constants governing the behavior of these phenomena led to an alternative perspective on saturation behavior kinetics. Their essential commonality was revealed by this analysis, based on the secondorder differential equation.
Keywords
 Initial Slope
 Enzyme Kinetic
 Empirical Constant
 Data Plot
 Algebraic Relation
Background
This paper answers the question: is there a general mathematical model common to the numerous natural phenomena that display identical saturation behavior? Examples include ligand binding, enzyme kinetics, facilitated diffusion, predatorprey behavior, bacterial culture growth rate, infection transmission, surface adsorption, and many more. The mathematical model developed here is based on a general secondorder differential equation (D.E.), free of empirical constants, that describes the basic relation underlying these saturation phenomena [1].
A common and productive way to analyze a specific saturation phenomenon uses a model for the proposed mechanism. This leads to an algebraic relation that describes the experimental observations, and helps interpret features of the mechanism. Where the phenomenon involves chemical reactions, for example, the models rely on assumptions about reaction mechanisms, dissociation constants, and mass action rate constants [2–7]. Note that such mechanisms cannot be proved definitively by standard kinetic studies [8].
In view of the ubiquity of saturation phenomena, it seems useful to seek one mathematical model that describes all such phenomena. The model presented here relies solely on the basic mathematical properties of the experimentally observed data plot for these phenomenathe independent variable versus the dependent variable. It is free of mechanism and therefore applies uniformly to all these phenomena. The analysis starts with a secondorder differential equation, free of constants, that offers a general way of describing them. This equation is then integrated and applied to illustrative examples.
Results
Basic saturation behavior case
The general nature of the initial extensive mathematical analysis suggests using familiar mathematical symbols x, y, dy, dx, dy/dx, d^{2}y/dx^{2}, etc.instead of using the symbols and notation particular to a specific saturation phenomenon, such as ligand binding where x would be A (free ligand), and y would be A_{b} (bound ligand). One can then substitute any phenomenon's particular symbols into the key equations.
where dκ/κ is the fractional change in the slope.
This algebraic relation, when substituted into equation (1), satisfies the secondorder D.E. Therefore, it is a general solution. The system constants are determined by forcing the general solution to fit the physical boundary conditions (x → 0 and x → ∞), giving a unique solution.
the general form of the standard algebraic relation used to describe the data plot in Figure 1, [2–7, 9–12].
Thus, as x → 0, Γ_{fr} → 1, and as x → ∞, Γ_{fr} → 0.
Thus, the change in the slope (dy/dx) divided by the change in the average slope (y/x) is determined by Γ_{fr}.
Ligand binding
Consider a small molecule, the ligand, that is present in either the free form, A, or the bound form, A_{b}. For the simplest case, assume that each ligand binds to a single specific binding site (bs). This could be on a macromolecule, M_{bs}, such as a protein. These sites are presumed to be independent and to have the same binding constant. The details of the experimental conditions required for these binding studies are found in standard reference texts [2, 5, 7, 9–12].
The total number of binding sites in the experimental system (M_{bs}, A, A_{b}) is (A_{b})_{sat}. It is the limiting amount of ligand binding observed at saturation with A. The initial slope is κ_{0}, the system's limiting binding rate when A → 0, and Γ_{fr} → 1. Thus, (A_{b})_{sat} and κ_{0} are the empirical constants of the ligand binding system. The conventional models of the binding mechanism identify K_{d} as the dissociation constant in mol L^{1}[2, 5, 6, 10–12]. Equation (11) is often referred to as the Langmuir adsorption isotherm, or the Hill binding equation. It is sometimes written using the binding fraction, Γ_{bd} = A_{b}/(A_{b})_{sat}.
Thus, k_{bind} is the binding rate constant for one mole of binding sites evaluated at A → 0, where Γ_{fr} → 1. It characterizes the binding strength of the ligand for the binding site. Therefore, a high value of k_{bind} means a high value of the initial slope of the system, κ_{0}, and so the value of K_{d} is decreased.
The complete expression for the units of κ_{0} illustrates how descriptive information could be lost when units are cancelled. Thus, the units [mol L^{1} of (dA_{b}) bound/mol L^{1} of (dA) added]_{0} describe a useful aspect of the binding processthe fraction of the added (dA) that is bound [(dA_{b})/dA], as A → 0. Taken over one minute, this yields the binding rate constant for one mole of binding sites.
where Γ_{fr} = (A_{b})_{sat}/[(A_{b})_{sat} + (κ_{0}·A)]. Thus, κ_{A} is defined as the system's effective binding rate at any value of Ato distinguish it from the highest value of κ, when A → 0, giving κ_{0}, the system's limiting binding rate. Thus, if κ_{0} is increased, then the ligand binding increases and (Γ_{fr})_{A} decreases, for a given value of A, because now more of the sites are occupied at A. If (A_{b})_{sat} is doubled, for example, Γ_{fr} will be increasedbut not proportionately, see equation (11).
Other examples
The term, binding site, is used for convenience as a general way of identifying the interactive locus of many saturation phenomena. For example: ligand binds to a macromolecule; a nutrient molecule binds to a receptor on a bacterial membrane and is transported inside; a prey is bound to a predator's jaws; a substrate binds to an enzyme's catalytic site; a molecule is adsorbed at sites on a surface (Langmuir's adsorption). Some saturation phenomena are less wellsuited to this binding site characterizatione.g., the stockrecruitment model for producing new fish biomass from spawning stock [13].
where r is the experimentally measured bacterial growth rate (g·L^{1} min^{1}), at a given concentration of nutrient, A(g·L^{1}). R_{sat} is the limiting growth rate at saturation with nutrient (g·L^{1} min^{1}). So, K = R_{sat}/κ_{0} in g·L^{1}, where the initial slope is κ_{0} (grams bacteria·L^{1} min^{1}/grams nutrient·L^{1}), evaluated at A → 0. It measures the effectiveness of the specific bacteria's ability to convert a specific nutrient to bacterial growthwhen all the receptor sites on the bacterial membrane are available. Thus, different bacteria using the same nutrient would have different values of κ_{0}, reflecting the relative effectiveness of nutrient binding to the different receptor sites.
where n is the number of prey attacked over unit time by the predators present, and N_{sat} is the limiting rate of attack at saturation with prey. Set A equal to the prey density (e.g., number of prey per square kilometer). Then K = N_{sat}/κ_{0}, where the initial slope, κ_{0}, measures the effectiveness of the predator attacking the prey, as A → 0. Thus, a predator attacking two different prey yields different values of κ_{0}.
MichaelisMenten (MM) enzyme kinetics
The necessary and sufficient condition for this analysis is the experimental data plot of (dP/dt) = p, versus A. See Figure 1, where p = y and A = x. The experimental conditions required for measuring p and A are described in standard reference texts [2–4, 7, 9–12]. The use here of p, instead of the conventional v, focuses attention on the actual measured quantity and how it relates to A, in terms of dp/dA and d^{2}p/dA^{2}.
Thus, the slope at any point, A, is κ_{A} = κ_{0}·(Γ_{fr})^{2}, where, from equation (8), Γ_{fr} = P_{sat}/[P_{sat} + (κ_{0}·A)]. Note that κ_{A} equals [(dA)converted/(dA)added]_{A} = (dp/dA)_{A}. This could be viewed as a measure of how effectively the system is converting substrate to product at A. It decreases rapidly as (1/A^{2}).
the standard form for the MM equation of enzyme kinetics.
Note that P_{sat} ≡ k_{cat}·E_{t}, where E_{t} is the total enzyme concentration present experimentally, which may not be known. The catalytic constant, k_{cat}, is the limiting catalytic rate at which one mole of enzyme molecule could operate if completely saturated with substrate. Similarly, κ_{0} ≡ k_{bind}·E_{t}, where k_{bind} is here defined to be the binding rate constant of the substrate for the catalytic sites on one mole of enzyme (min^{1} mol^{1})  evaluated when A → 0, where the catalytic site is maximally available, because Γ_{fr} → 1.
Thus, if k_{bind} is increased, Γ_{fr} is decreased, because there are fewer free sites available at a given value of A. Whereas, if k_{cat} is increased, Γ_{fr} is increased. The increased turnover rate means more free sites are available at a given value of A. As expected, Γ_{fr} is independent of E_{t}, because Γ_{fr} depends only on the basic properties of the enzyme's catalytic function, k_{bind} and k_{cat}.
Enzyme kinetics differs from ligand binding because there is also a conversion step. The binding step is much faster than the conversion step, where the catalytic site converts the bound substrate to product and releases it. This is commonly assumed to involve a simple 1:1 stoichiometric relation between substrate bound and product released [19]. The binding rate constant for one mole of enzyme is defined here to be = κ_{0}/E_{t} = k_{cat}/K_{m}. The ratio, k_{cat}/K_{m}, is often referred to as the specificity constant [19, 20]. Thus, k_{bind} indicates the strength of the mutual interaction between a specific substrate and a specific enzyme, at the catalytic site, measured when A → 0. It defines a collective property for each particular combination of substrate and enzyme. For example, let A and E_{cs} → k_{bind}, while A' and E'_{cs} → k'_{bind}, where k_{bind} most probably differs from k'_{bind}, but might not. Therefore, the higher the value of k_{bind}, the more effectively does the substrate bind to the enzyme's catalytic site. The enzyme and substrate, taken together, perform better at higher values of k_{bind}[20].
Therefore, K_{m} is defined by the ratio of the experimental system's empirical constants, which depend on the enzyme's basic properties. When E_{t} is known, one can obtain values for k_{cat} and k_{bind}. Whereas, although P_{sat} and κ_{0} often are measured experimentally where E_{t} is not known, their ratio still gives K_{m}. Doubling E_{t} will double both P_{sat} and κ_{0}, so the ratio, K_{m}, remains unchanged.
For clarity and convenience, the definitions and units of the various constants are explicitly stated here.
This gives a linear plot of (A/p) versus A. The slope is (1/P_{sat}) and the ordinate intercept is (1/κ_{0}), recall Figure 2. This provides direct evaluation of the system's empirical constants, κ_{0}, and P_{sat}, from the experimental data. Using C_{1} = 1/κ_{0}, obtained from equation (19), one can calculate κ_{A}, at any value of A, using the equation for κ_{A}.
Discussion
Basic case
The mathematical model presented here is based solely on the observed experimental data plot for these phenomena, as shown in Figure 1. This analysis of the secondorder D.E. offers an alternative approach, free of mechanism, that describes the common process underlying all natural phenomena exhibiting saturation behavior. It provides a general mathematical description of these phenomena. The D.E. approach takes a path of discovery that reveals the salient features of these phenomena on the way to reaching y = x/[(1/κ_{0}) + (1/Y_{sat})·x]. It complements approaches that model each specific saturation phenomenon separately, in terms of a proposed mechanism.
The D.E. analysis provided two general integration constants, C_{1} and C_{2}, evaluated at the known boundary conditions, x → 0 and x → ∞. This gave the two empirical constants, κ_{0} and Y_{sat}, that defined the relation between the variables of any saturation phenomenon  see equation (6), the general algebraic description of these saturation phenomena. The empirical constant, κ_{0}, the initial slope, and its practical significance, have not been recognized previously.
Applying the quantitative relation for Γ_{fr} clarified the functioning of the interactive site. It showed that the underlying relation describing these phenomena, equation (1), became Δ(dy/dx)/Δ(y/x) = Γ_{fr}, see equation (9). The slope, equation (3), became κ = κ_{0}·(Γ_{fr})^{2}. Its strong dependence on (1/x^{2}) was shown. As x increases, each added increment, dx, sees a lower Γ_{fr}, because a greater fraction of the sites are occupied at the instant of adding dx. This leaves fewer sites free to attend to the conversion of this additional dx. This behavior is the essence of how these saturation phenomena function in response to increased x.
Ligand binding, bacterial growth, predatorprey
The response of these saturation phenomena to increased A is driven by Γ_{fr}, see equations (9) and (10). The independent empirical constants for each phenomenon relate the variables of each and define the K that characterizes each one, see equations (11), (13a) and (13b). This mathematical model defines K, in general, as the ratio of the limiting rate/initial slope. Figure 2 shows how to obtain their values from the data. Other applications of this general approach include surface adsorption, facilitated transport, and transmission of infection. It emphasizes the utility of the initial slope, κ_{0}.
MichaelisMenten enzyme kinetics
Equation (10) shows that the slope, κ_{A}, depends on (Γ_{fr})^{2} and (1/A^{2}). Thus, Γ_{fr} drives the experimental system's behavior and accounts, quantitatively, for the decrease in the slope with increasing A. This leads to the concepts of:

■ the system's effective binding rate, for E_{t} moles of enzyme, at A.

■ the binding rate constant for one mole of enzyme, at A → 0.
For E_{t} moles, (dp/dA)_{0} = κ_{0}, and for one mole, (dp/dA)_{0}/E_{t} = κ_{0}/E_{t} = k_{bind}. Note that κ_{A} = (dp/dA)_{A} can be calculated using the equation for the slope and equation (19). Thus, the (slope)_{A}/(slope)_{0} = (Γ_{fr})^{2}, where Γ_{fr} = P_{sat}/[P_{sat} + (κ_{0}·A)].
The D.E. analysis defined the two independent empirical constants of this experimental system as κ_{0} and P_{sat}. Equation (15) is the general algebraic relation for illustrating their independent roles. Equation (18) ties together these empirical constants and the basic properties, k_{cat} and k_{bind}, to relate them to K_{m}. Thus, k_{bind} and k_{cat}, taken together, can expand the ability to characterize and compare the interaction of enzymes and their substrates.
The usual model for the MM enzyme reaction mechanism defines K_{m} as a constant derived from the reaction rate constants. Such models are essential in pursuing the details of a proposed mechanism for MM enzyme reactions, or for any saturation phenomenon. Yet, numerous different interpretations of what K_{m} means have arisen in the literature, based on the standard model and mechanism. Some examples include: parameter, kinetic constant, not an independent kinetic constant, empirical quantity, a constant for the steadystate, measures affinity in the steadystate, should not be used as a measure of substrate affinity, most useful fundamental constant of enzyme chemistry, not a true equilibrium constant, dubious assertion that K_{m} reflects an enzyme's affinity for its substrate [2–12, 21]. According to Riggs, "Notice that the Michaelis constant is not a rate constant, nor an affinity constant, nor a dissociation constant, but is merely a constant of convenience" [22]. The interpretation presented here, based on the mathematical model, is rooted in equation (18). It showed that K_{m} = k_{cat}/k_{bind}, the ratio of the enzyme's basic properties. Thus, this model viewed K_{m} as a derived quantity, and not as an independent basic property of the enzyme molecule's catalytic function.
The action of enzyme inhibitors offers additional perspective on interpreting K_{m} = k_{cat}/k_{bind}. Consider five basic cases of enzyme inhibition: Competitive, Uncompetitive, Pure NonCompetitive, Predominantly Competitive, Predominantly Uncompetitive [19]. In no case does the inhibitor (I) cause the limiting rate, P_{sat}, or the initial slope, κ_{0}, of the observed data plot for the experimental system (E_{t}, I, A, P) to increase. The value of K_{m} = k_{cat}/k_{bind}, however, is observed to increase, remain unchanged, or decreasedepending on the relative effects of the inhibitor on k_{cat} and k_{bind}. Any basic property of an enzyme molecule's catalytic function should never increase in the presence of an inhibitor. Thus, k_{cat} and k_{bind} meet this condition. Their ratio, k_{cat}/k_{bind} = K_{m}, does not. Therefore, K_{m} is not one of the two basic properties. Changing from K_{m} to A_{M}, the Michaelis concentration, would be consistent with this interpretation [19].
The ratio of these observable empirical constants, P_{sat}/κ_{0}, defines K_{m}. Thus, the mathematical analysis offers an operational definition of K_{m}, independent of any interpretations [19]. This approach to defining K_{m} is consistent with all the known factors. "Definitions based on what is actually observed are therefore on a sounder and more lasting basis than those that depend on an assumed mechanism" [19]. Numerous mechanisms can generate MM kinetics; "Consequently there is no general definition of any of the kinetic parameters... in terms of the rate constants for the elementary steps of a reaction's mechanism" [19].
The algebraic relation, p = P_{sat}·A/(K_{m} + A), describes the data plot of an enzyme kinetic study. Its validity is independent of any mechanism. The mechanismfree approach derives this algebraic relation directly from the secondorder D.E. This general analysis also reveals the underlying factors, such as Γ_{fr}, that govern the basic behavior of these saturation phenomena.
The enzyme's catalytic function involves two distinct processes, binding the substrate and converting it to product. This mathematical analysis demonstrated that the two empirical constants of the D.E., κ_{0} = E_{t}·k_{bind} and P_{sat} = E_{t}·k_{cat}, define these two processesbinding and catalysisin terms of the basic properties, k_{bind} and k_{cat}.
Conclusions
The results presented here are completely general and based entirely on a mathematical model that analyzes the observed experimental data plot for the relation between the independent and dependent variables. They apply directly to every natural phenomenon displaying the characteristic saturation behavior that produces the hyperbolic kinetics described by the relation, . The secondorder D.E. presented here reveals the basic underlying relation that applies to these phenomena and its dependence on the probability a site is free. The analysis provides a theoretical basis for defining the empirical constants and basic properties of each saturation phenomenon, based on the two constants of integration evaluated at the boundary conditions. The universality of these saturation phenomena makes it useful to have the D.E., free of constants, that describes the basic properties of all these systems.
The firstorder D.E. derived here introduces the concept of the effective binding rate. It is directly related to the slope of the experimental data plot. The initial slope is where it is highest, the binding rate constant of the ligand for the binding site. The analysis revealed the significance of the initial slope as an independent empirical constant for these systems exhibiting saturation behavior, and its role in determining the probability that the active site is free.
Declarations
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Mellor J: Higher Mathematics for Students of Chemistry and Physics. 1955, New York: DoverGoogle Scholar
 Bisswanger H: Enzyme Kinetics. 2008, Weinheim: WileyVCH, 2View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Cook P, Cleland W: Enzyme Kinetics and Mechanism. 2007, New York: Garland ScienceGoogle Scholar
 CornishBowden A, Wharton C: Enzyme Kinetics. 1988, Oxford: IRL PressGoogle Scholar
 Klotz I: LigandReceptor Energetics. 1997, New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
 Matthews J: Fundamentals of Receptor, Enzyme and Transport Kinetics. 1993, London: CRCGoogle Scholar
 Purich D, Allison R: Handbook of Biochemical Kinetics. 2000, New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
 Hammes G: Physical Chemistry for the Biological Sciences. 2007, New York: WileyInterscienceGoogle Scholar
 Bisswanger H: Practical Enzymology. 2004, Weinheim: WileyVCHGoogle Scholar
 Gutfreund H: Kinetics for the Life Sciences. 1995, Cambridge University PressView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Van Holde K, Johnson W, Ito P: Principles of Physical Biochemistry. 2006, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2Google Scholar
 Wilson K, Walker J: Practical Biochemistry. 2000, Cambridge University Press, 5Google Scholar
 Beverton R, Holt S: On the dynamics of exploited fish populations. 1959, London: HMSOGoogle Scholar
 Monod J: La Technique de culture continue: theorie et applications. Ann Inst Pasteur. 1950, 79: 390410.Google Scholar
 EdelsteinKeshet L: Mathematical models in biology. 1988, New York: Random HouseGoogle Scholar
 Holling CS: The components of predation as revealed by a study of small mammal predation of the European pine saw fly. Can Entomol. 1959, 91: 293320. 10.4039/Ent912935.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Real L: The kinetics of functional response. Am Naturalist. 1977, 111: 289300. 10.1086/283161.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Berryman A: The origin and evolution of predatorprey theory. Ecology. 1992, 73: 15301535. 10.2307/1940005.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 International Union of Biochemistry: Symbolism and terminology in enzyme kinetics. Biochem J. 1983, 213: 561571.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Koshland DE: The application and usefulness of the ratio k_{cat}/K_{(M)}. Bioorg Chem. 2002, 30: 211213. 10.1006/bioo.2002.1246.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Netter H: Theoretical Biochemistry. 1969, Edinburgh: Oliver and BoydGoogle Scholar
 Riggs D: The Mathematical Approach to Physiological Problems. 1963, Cambridge: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Comments
View archived comments (1)