Hydration Water Dynamics Near Biological Interfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We performed classical molecular dynamics simulations using both fixed-charge and polarizable water and protein force fields to contrast the hydration dynamics near hydrophilic and amphiphilic peptides as a function of temperature. The high peptide concentrations we use serve as a model for the surface of folded proteins where hydration layers around each residue overlap significantly. Through simulation we determine that there are notable differences in the water dynamics analyzed from the outer and inner hydration layer regions of the amphiphilic peptide solution that explains the experimentally observed presence of two translational relaxations, while the hydrophilic peptide solution shows only a single non-Arrhenius translational process with no distinction between hydration layers. Given that water dynamics for the amphiphilic peptide system reproduces all known rotational and translational hydration dynamical anomalies exhibited by hydration water near protein surfaces, our analysis provides strong evidence that dynamical signatures near biological interfaces arises because of frustration in the hydration dynamics induced by chemical heterogeneity, as opposed to just topological roughness, of the protein surface.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".