Skip to main content
PMC home page
Biophysical Journal logoLink to Biophysical Journal
. 1998 Aug;75(2):755–768. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(98)77565-4

Hydration and conformational equilibria of simple hydrophobic and amphiphilic solutes.

H S Ashbaugh 1, E W Kaler 1, M E Paulaitis 1
PMCID: PMC1299750  PMID: 9675177

Abstract

We consider whether the continuum model of hydration optimized to reproduce vacuum-to-water transfer free energies simultaneously describes the hydration free energy contributions to conformational equilibria of the same solutes in water. To this end, transfer and conformational free energies of idealized hydrophobic and amphiphilic solutes in water are calculated from explicit water simulations and compared to continuum model predictions. As benchmark hydrophobic solutes, we examine the hydration of linear alkanes from methane through hexane. Amphiphilic solutes were created by adding a charge of +/-1e to a terminal methyl group of butane. We find that phenomenological continuum parameters fit to transfer free energies are significantly different from those fit to conformational free energies of our model solutes. This difference is attributed to continuum model parameters that depend on solute conformation in water, and leads to effective values for the free energy/surface area coefficient and Born radii that best describe conformational equilibrium. In light of these results, we believe that continuum models of hydration optimized to fit transfer free energies do not accurately capture the balance between hydrophobic and electrostatic contributions that determines the solute conformational state in aqueous solution.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (173.1 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Chothia C. Hydrophobic bonding and accessible surface area in proteins. Nature. 1974 Mar 22;248(446):338–339. doi: 10.1038/248338a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Figueirido F., Del Buono G. S., Levy R. M. Molecular mechanics and electrostatic effects. Biophys Chem. 1994 Aug;51(2-3):235–241. doi: 10.1016/0301-4622(94)00044-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Honig B., Nicholls A. Classical electrostatics in biology and chemistry. Science. 1995 May 26;268(5214):1144–1149. doi: 10.1126/science.7761829. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hummer G., Garde S., García A. E., Paulaitis M. E., Pratt L. R. The pressure dependence of hydrophobic interactions is consistent with the observed pressure denaturation of proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Feb 17;95(4):1552–1555. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.4.1552. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hummer G., Garde S., García A. E., Pohorille A., Pratt L. R. An information theory model of hydrophobic interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Aug 20;93(17):8951–8955. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.17.8951. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Jackson R. M., Sternberg M. J. Application of scaled particle theory to model the hydrophobic effect: implications for molecular association and protein stability. Protein Eng. 1994 Mar;7(3):371–383. doi: 10.1093/protein/7.3.371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. KAUZMANN W. Some factors in the interpretation of protein denaturation. Adv Protein Chem. 1959;14:1–63. doi: 10.1016/s0065-3233(08)60608-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Lee B., Richards F. M. The interpretation of protein structures: estimation of static accessibility. J Mol Biol. 1971 Feb 14;55(3):379–400. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(71)90324-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Nakamura H. Roles of electrostatic interaction in proteins. Q Rev Biophys. 1996 Feb;29(1):1–90. doi: 10.1017/s0033583500005746. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Rank J. A., Baker D. A desolvation barrier to hydrophobic cluster formation may contribute to the rate-limiting step in protein folding. Protein Sci. 1997 Feb;6(2):347–354. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560060210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Reynolds J. A., Gilbert D. B., Tanford C. Empirical correlation between hydrophobic free energy and aqueous cavity surface area. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1974 Aug;71(8):2925–2927. doi: 10.1073/pnas.71.8.2925. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Richards F. M. Areas, volumes, packing and protein structure. Annu Rev Biophys Bioeng. 1977;6:151–176. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bb.06.060177.001055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Rogers N. K. The modelling of electrostatic interactions in the function of globular proteins. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 1986;48(1):37–66. doi: 10.1016/0079-6107(86)90009-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Wallqvist A., Covell D. G. On the origins of the hydrophobic effect: observations from simulations of n-dodecane in model solvents. Biophys J. 1996 Aug;71(2):600–608. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(96)79260-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Wilson I. Plastids better red than dead. Nature. 1993 Dec 16;366(6456):638–638. doi: 10.1038/366638a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Yang A. S., Honig B. Free energy determinants of secondary structure formation: I. alpha-Helices. J Mol Biol. 1995 Sep 22;252(3):351–365. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1995.0502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Yang A. S., Honig B. Free energy determinants of secondary structure formation: II. Antiparallel beta-sheets. J Mol Biol. 1995 Sep 22;252(3):366–376. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1995.0503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Zauhar R. J., Morgan R. S. A new method for computing the macromolecular electric potential. J Mol Biol. 1985 Dec 20;186(4):815–820. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(85)90399-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Zauhar R. J. SMART: a solvent-accessible triangulated surface generator for molecular graphics and boundary element applications. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 1995 Apr;9(2):149–159. doi: 10.1007/BF00124405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Biophysical Journal are provided here courtesy of The Biophysical Society

RESOURCES