The Energetic Origins of Pi–Pi Contacts in Proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate potential energy models of proteins must describe the many different types of noncovalent interactions that contribute to a protein's stability and structure. Pi-pi contacts are ubiquitous structural motifs in all proteins, occurring between aromatic and nonaromatic residues and play a nontrivial role in protein folding and in the formation of biomolecular condensates. Guided by a geometric criterion for isolating pi-pi contacts from classical molecular dynamics simulations of proteins, we use quantum mechanical energy decomposition analysis to determine the molecular interactions that stabilize different pi-pi contact motifs. We find that neutral pi-pi interactions in proteins are dominated by Pauli repulsion and London dispersion rather than repulsive quadrupole electrostatics, which is central to the textbook Hunter-Sanders model. This results in a notable lack of variability in the interaction profiles of neutral pi-pi contacts even with extreme changes in the dielectric medium, explaining the prevalence of pi-stacked arrangements in and between proteins. We also find interactions involving pi-containing anions and cations to be extremely malleable, interacting like neutral pi-pi contacts in polar media and like typical ion-pi interactions in nonpolar environments. Like-charged pairs such as arginine-arginine contacts are particularly sensitive to the polarity of their immediate surroundings and exhibit canonical pi-pi stacking behavior only if the interaction is mediated by environmental effects, such as aqueous solvation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".