How osmolytes influence hydrophobic polymer conformations: A unified view from experiment and theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is currently the consensus belief that protective osmolytes such as trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO) favor protein folding by being excluded from the vicinity of a protein, whereas denaturing osmolytes such as urea lead to protein unfolding by strongly binding to the surface. Despite there being consensus on how TMAO and urea affect proteins as a whole, very little is known as to their effects on the individual mechanisms responsible for protein structure formation, especially hydrophobic association. In the present study, we use single-molecule atomic force microscopy and molecular dynamics simulations to investigate the effects of TMAO and urea on the unfolding of the hydrophobic homopolymer polystyrene. Incorporated with interfacial energy measurements, our results show that TMAO and urea act on polystyrene as a protectant and a denaturant, respectively, while complying with Tanford-Wyman preferential binding theory. We provide a molecular explanation suggesting that TMAO molecules have a greater thermodynamic binding affinity with the collapsed conformation of polystyrene than with the extended conformation, while the reverse is true for urea molecules. Results presented here from both experiment and simulation are in line with earlier predictions on a model Lennard-Jones polymer while also demonstrating the distinction in the mechanism of osmolyte action between protein and hydrophobic polymer. This marks, to our knowledge, the first experimental observation of TMAO-induced hydrophobic collapse in a ternary aqueous system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".