Reconciling the understanding of 'hydrophobicity' with physics-based models of proteins

Robert C. Harris, Bernard Pettitt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The idea that a 'hydrophobic energy' drives protein folding, aggregation, and binding by favoring the sequestration of bulky residues from water into the protein interior is widespread. The solvation free energies (ΔGsolv) of small nonpolar solutes increase with surface area (A), and the free energies of creating macroscopic cavities in water increase linearly with A. These observations seem to imply that there is a hydrophobic component (ΔGhyd) of ΔGsolv that increases linearly with A, and this assumption is widely used in implicit solvent models. However, some explicit-solvent molecular dynamics studies appear to contradict these ideas. For example, one definition (ΔGLJ) of ΔGhyd is that it is the free energy of turning on the Lennard-Jones (LJ) interactions between the solute and solvent. However, ΔGLJ decreases with A for alanine and glycine peptides. Here we argue that these apparent contradictions can be reconciled by defining ΔGhyd to be a near hard core insertion energy (ΔGrep), as in the partitioning proposed by Weeks, Chandler, and Andersen. However, recent results have shown that ΔGrep is not a simple function of geometric properties of the molecule, such as A and the molecular volume, and that the free energy of turning on the attractive part of the LJ potential cannot be computed from first-order perturbation theory for proteins. The theories that have been developed from these assumptions to predict ΔGhyd are therefore inadequate for proteins.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number083003
JournalJournal of Physics Condensed Matter
Volume28
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2 2016

Fingerprint

Hydrophobicity
hydrophobicity
Free energy
Physics
free energy
proteins
Proteins
physics
solutes
Lennard-Jones potential
Protein folding
Water
Solvation
alanine
glycine
Alanine
Glycine
folding
water
Peptides

Keywords

  • hydrophobic effect
  • protein folding
  • simulation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Condensed Matter Physics
  • Materials Science(all)

Cite this

Reconciling the understanding of 'hydrophobicity' with physics-based models of proteins. / Harris, Robert C.; Pettitt, Bernard.

In: Journal of Physics Condensed Matter, Vol. 28, No. 8, 083003, 02.02.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{63279887189b4b129b22f4a4678098da,
title = "Reconciling the understanding of 'hydrophobicity' with physics-based models of proteins",
abstract = "The idea that a 'hydrophobic energy' drives protein folding, aggregation, and binding by favoring the sequestration of bulky residues from water into the protein interior is widespread. The solvation free energies (ΔGsolv) of small nonpolar solutes increase with surface area (A), and the free energies of creating macroscopic cavities in water increase linearly with A. These observations seem to imply that there is a hydrophobic component (ΔGhyd) of ΔGsolv that increases linearly with A, and this assumption is widely used in implicit solvent models. However, some explicit-solvent molecular dynamics studies appear to contradict these ideas. For example, one definition (ΔGLJ) of ΔGhyd is that it is the free energy of turning on the Lennard-Jones (LJ) interactions between the solute and solvent. However, ΔGLJ decreases with A for alanine and glycine peptides. Here we argue that these apparent contradictions can be reconciled by defining ΔGhyd to be a near hard core insertion energy (ΔGrep), as in the partitioning proposed by Weeks, Chandler, and Andersen. However, recent results have shown that ΔGrep is not a simple function of geometric properties of the molecule, such as A and the molecular volume, and that the free energy of turning on the attractive part of the LJ potential cannot be computed from first-order perturbation theory for proteins. The theories that have been developed from these assumptions to predict ΔGhyd are therefore inadequate for proteins.",
keywords = "hydrophobic effect, protein folding, simulation",
author = "Harris, {Robert C.} and Bernard Pettitt",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1088/0953-8984/28/8/083003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
journal = "Journal of Physics Condensed Matter",
issn = "0953-8984",
publisher = "IOP Publishing Ltd.",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reconciling the understanding of 'hydrophobicity' with physics-based models of proteins

AU - Harris, Robert C.

AU - Pettitt, Bernard

PY - 2016/2/2

Y1 - 2016/2/2

N2 - The idea that a 'hydrophobic energy' drives protein folding, aggregation, and binding by favoring the sequestration of bulky residues from water into the protein interior is widespread. The solvation free energies (ΔGsolv) of small nonpolar solutes increase with surface area (A), and the free energies of creating macroscopic cavities in water increase linearly with A. These observations seem to imply that there is a hydrophobic component (ΔGhyd) of ΔGsolv that increases linearly with A, and this assumption is widely used in implicit solvent models. However, some explicit-solvent molecular dynamics studies appear to contradict these ideas. For example, one definition (ΔGLJ) of ΔGhyd is that it is the free energy of turning on the Lennard-Jones (LJ) interactions between the solute and solvent. However, ΔGLJ decreases with A for alanine and glycine peptides. Here we argue that these apparent contradictions can be reconciled by defining ΔGhyd to be a near hard core insertion energy (ΔGrep), as in the partitioning proposed by Weeks, Chandler, and Andersen. However, recent results have shown that ΔGrep is not a simple function of geometric properties of the molecule, such as A and the molecular volume, and that the free energy of turning on the attractive part of the LJ potential cannot be computed from first-order perturbation theory for proteins. The theories that have been developed from these assumptions to predict ΔGhyd are therefore inadequate for proteins.

AB - The idea that a 'hydrophobic energy' drives protein folding, aggregation, and binding by favoring the sequestration of bulky residues from water into the protein interior is widespread. The solvation free energies (ΔGsolv) of small nonpolar solutes increase with surface area (A), and the free energies of creating macroscopic cavities in water increase linearly with A. These observations seem to imply that there is a hydrophobic component (ΔGhyd) of ΔGsolv that increases linearly with A, and this assumption is widely used in implicit solvent models. However, some explicit-solvent molecular dynamics studies appear to contradict these ideas. For example, one definition (ΔGLJ) of ΔGhyd is that it is the free energy of turning on the Lennard-Jones (LJ) interactions between the solute and solvent. However, ΔGLJ decreases with A for alanine and glycine peptides. Here we argue that these apparent contradictions can be reconciled by defining ΔGhyd to be a near hard core insertion energy (ΔGrep), as in the partitioning proposed by Weeks, Chandler, and Andersen. However, recent results have shown that ΔGrep is not a simple function of geometric properties of the molecule, such as A and the molecular volume, and that the free energy of turning on the attractive part of the LJ potential cannot be computed from first-order perturbation theory for proteins. The theories that have been developed from these assumptions to predict ΔGhyd are therefore inadequate for proteins.

KW - hydrophobic effect

KW - protein folding

KW - simulation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84958019578&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84958019578&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1088/0953-8984/28/8/083003

DO - 10.1088/0953-8984/28/8/083003

M3 - Article

C2 - 26836518

AN - SCOPUS:84958019578

VL - 28

JO - Journal of Physics Condensed Matter

JF - Journal of Physics Condensed Matter

SN - 0953-8984

IS - 8

M1 - 083003

ER -