Anti‐cooperativity and cooperativity in hydrophobic interactions: Three‐body free energy landscapes and comparison with implicit‐solvent potential functions for proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Potentials of mean force (PMFs) of three-body hydrophobic association are investigated to gain insight into similar processes in protein folding. Free energy landscapes obtained from explicit simulations of three methanes in water are compared with that predicted by popular implicit-solvent effective potentials for the study of proteins. Explicit-water simulations show that for an extended range of three-methane configurations, hydrophobic association at 25 degrees C under atmospheric pressure is mostly anti-cooperative, that is, less favorable than if the interaction free energies were pairwise additive. Effects of free energy nonadditivity on the kinetic path of association and the temperature dependence of additivity are explored by using a three-methane system and simplified chain models. The prevalence of anti-cooperativity under ambient conditions suggests that driving forces other than hydrophobicity also play critical roles in protein thermodynamic cooperativity. We evaluate the effectiveness of several implicit-solvent potentials in mimicking explicit water simulated three-body PMFs. The favorability of the contact free energy minimum is found to be drastically overestimated by solvent accessible surface area (SASA). Both the SASA and a volume-based Gaussian solvent exclusion model fail to predict the desolvation barrier. However, this barrier is qualitatively captured by the molecular surface area model and a recent "hydrophobic force field." None of the implicit-solvent models tested are accurate for the entire range of three-methane configurations and several other thermodynamic signatures considered.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".