Protein Dielectric Constants Determined from NMR Chemical Shift Perturbations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the connection between protein structure and function requires a quantitative understanding of electrostatic effects. Structure-based electrostatic calculations are essential for this purpose, but their use has been limited by a long-standing discussion on which value to use for the dielectric constants (ε(eff) and ε(p)) required in Coulombic and Poisson-Boltzmann models. The currently used values for ε(eff) and ε(p) are essentially empirical parameters calibrated against thermodynamic properties that are indirect measurements of protein electric fields. We determine optimal values for ε(eff) and ε(p) by measuring protein electric fields in solution using direct detection of NMR chemical shift perturbations (CSPs). We measured CSPs in 14 proteins to get a broad and general characterization of electric fields. Coulomb's law reproduces the measured CSPs optimally with a protein dielectric constant (ε(eff)) from 3 to 13, with an optimal value across all proteins of 6.5. However, when the water-protein interface is treated with finite difference Poisson-Boltzmann calculations, the optimal protein dielectric constant (ε(p)) ranged from 2 to 5 with an optimum of 3. It is striking how similar this value is to the dielectric constant of 2-4 measured for protein powders and how different it is from the ε(p) of 6-20 used in models based on the Poisson-Boltzmann equation when calculating thermodynamic parameters. Because the value of ε(p) = 3 is obtained by analysis of NMR chemical shift perturbations instead of thermodynamic parameters such as pK(a) values, it is likely to describe only the electric field and thus represent a more general, intrinsic, and transferable ε(p) common to most folded proteins.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".