Abstract

The compressibility of a protein relates to its stability, flexibility, and hydrophobic interactions, but the measurement, interpretation, and computation of this important thermodynamic parameter present technical and conceptual challenges. Here, we present a theoretical analysis of protein compressibility and apply it to molecular dynamics simulations of four globular proteins. Using additively weighted Voronoi tessellation, we decompose the solution compressibility into contributions from the protein and its hydration shells. We find that positively cross-correlated protein-water volume fluctuations account for more than half of the protein compressibility that governs the protein's pressure response, while the self correlations correspond to small (∼0.7%) fluctuations of the protein volume. The self compressibility is nearly the same as for ice, whereas the total protein compressibility, including cross correlations, is ∼45% of the bulk-water value. Taking the inhomogeneous solvent density into account, we decompose the experimentally accessible protein partial compressibility into intrinsic, hydration, and molecular exchange contributions and show how they can be computed with good statistical accuracy despite the dominant bulk-water contribution. The exchange contribution describes how the protein solution responds to an applied pressure by redistributing water molecules from lower to higher density; it is negligibly small for native proteins, but potentially important for non-native states. Because the hydration shell is an open system, the conventional closed-system compressibility definitions yield a pseudo-compressibility. We define an intrinsic shell compressibility, unaffected by occupation number fluctuations, and show that it approaches the bulk-water value exponentially with a decay "length" of one shell, less than the bulk-water compressibility correlation length. In the first hydration shell, the intrinsic compressibility is 25%-30% lower than in bulk water, whereas its self part is 15%-20% lower. These large reductions are caused mainly by the proximity to the more rigid protein and are not a consequence of the perturbed water structure.

Highlights

  • The isothermal compressibility governs the stability of a protein against pressure denaturation1–4 and determines its functionally relevant5,6 mechanical properties7 and volume fluctuations.8 In addition, because the work of cavity formation is related to compressibility,9 the hydration shell compressibility is linked to hydrophobic effects at the protein-water interface.10Experimentally, the compressibility is usually deduced from measurements of ultrasound velocity.11,12 Such measurements provide the protein partial compressibility, which reflects the properties of the protein as well as its hydration shell.13–23 Because experiments cannot disentangle these two contributions without further assumptions,24 molecular simulations have been used extensively to interpret and extend the experimental information.25–38 But the computational analysis of compressibility faces several challenges

  • We find that positively cross-correlated protein-water volume fluctuations account for more than half of the protein compressibility that governs the protein’s pressure response, while the self correlations correspond to small (∼0.7%) fluctuations of the protein volume

  • It was erroneously concluded that hydration water of bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor (BPTI) has a higher compressibility than bulk water, whereas we find it to be 30% lower

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The isothermal compressibility governs the stability of a protein against pressure denaturation and determines its functionally relevant mechanical properties and volume fluctuations. In addition, because the work of cavity formation is (inversely) related to compressibility, the hydration shell compressibility is linked to hydrophobic effects at the protein-water interface.. The fluctuation formula that relates the compressibility to the mean-square volume fluctuation is only valid for a closed system When this formula is applied to a hydration shell, one obtains a pseudo-compressibility that differs greatly from the true (intrinsic) shell compressibility because it includes a (negative) contribution from molecular exchange between regions of different density. The sum of these artificial shell contributions is not artificial, provided that the system contains a fixed number of water molecules (as for simulations in the usual NpT, NVT, or NVE ensembles) This additional contribution to the total solvent compressibility arises because an inhomogeneous solvent can respond to an applied pressure by redistributing molecules from lower-density to higher-density regions. Because the results from the four proteins and three water models used here are very similar, some figures include data from only one of the simulated systems; the complete results from all six protein solutions can be found in the supplementary material

MD simulations
Hydration shells
Volumes and compressibilities
Statistics
Cluster analysis
BULK WATER
Component compressibility
Partial compressibility
HYDRATION-SHELL DECOMPOSITION
Pseudo-compressibility
Intrinsic compressibility
Findings
DISCUSSION
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call