Energetics of Intermolecular Hydrogen Bonds in a Hydrophobic Protein Cavity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work explores the energetics of intermolecular H-bonds inside a hydrophobic protein cavity. Kinetic measurements were performed on the gaseous deprotonated ions (at the -7 charge state) of complexes of bovine β-lactoglobulin (Lg) and three monohydroxylated analogs of palmitic acid (PA): 3-hydroxypalmitic acid (3-OHPA), 7-hydroxypalmitic acid (7-OHPA), and 16-hydroxypalmitic acid (16-OHPA). From the increase in the activation energy for the dissociation of the (Lg + X-OHPA)⁷⁻ ions, compared with that of the (Lg + PA)⁷⁻ ion, it is concluded that the –OH groups of the X-OHPA ligands participate in strong (5-11 kcal mol⁻¹) intermolecular H-bonds in the hydrophobic cavity of Lg. The results of molecular dynamics (MD) simulations suggest that the –OH groups of 3-OHPA and 16-OHPA act as H-bond donors and interact with backbone carbonyl oxygens, whereas the –OH group of 7-OHPA acts as both H-bond donor and acceptor with nearby side chains. The capacity for intermolecular H-bonds within the Lg cavity, as suggested by the gas-phase measurements, does not necessarily lead to enhanced binding in aqueous solution. The association constant (Ka) measured for 7-OHPA [(2.3 ± 0.2) × 10⁵ M⁻¹] is similar to the value for the PA [(3.8 ± 0.1) × 10⁵ M⁻¹]; Ka for 3-OHPA [(1.1 ± 0.3) × 10⁶ M⁻¹] is approximately three-times larger, whereas Ka for 16-OHPA [(2.3 ± 0.2) × 10⁴ M⁻¹] is an order of magnitude smaller. Taken together, the results of this study suggest that the energetic penalty to desolvating the ligand –OH groups, which is necessary for complex formation, is similar in magnitude to the energetic contribution of the intermolecular H-bonds.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".