Differences in melting behavior between homopolymers and copolymers of DNA: Role of nonbonded forces for GC and the role of the hydration spine and premelting transition for AT

Abstract

AbstractMelting measurements of the mono‐base‐pair DNA polymers showed that the melting temperature Tm of the B‐DNA homopolymer poly (dA ) · poly (dT) is higher than that of the copolymer poly [d(A‐T)]. On the other hand, the Tmof the B‐DNA homopolymer poly (dG) · poly (dC) is lower than that of the copolymer poly [d (G‐C)]. From a structural point of view, the cross‐strand base‐stacking interaction in a DNA homopolymer is weaker than that in a DNA copolymer with the same base pair. One would then expect that all the DNA homopolymers are less stable than the copolymer with the same base pair. We find that the inversion of the melting order seen in the AT mono‐base‐pair DNA polymers is caused by the enhanced thermal stability of poly (dA) · poly (dT) from a well‐defined spine of hydration attached to its minor groove. In this paper we employ the modified self‐consistent phonon theory to calculate base‐pair opening probabilities of four B‐DNA polymers: poly(dA)‐poly(dT), poly(dG) · poly(dC), poly[d(A‐T)], and poly[d(G‐C)] at temperatures from room temperature through the melting regions. Our calculations show that the spine of hydration can give the inverted melting order of the AT polymers as compared to the GC polymers in fair agreement with experimental measurements. Our calculated hydration spine disruption behavior in poly(dA) · poly(dT) at premelting temperatures is also in agreement with experimentally observed premelting transitions in poly (dA) · poly (dT). The work is in a sense a test of the validity of our models of nonbonded interactions and spine of hydration interactions. We find we have to develop the concept of a strained bond to fit observations in poly (dA) · poly(dT). The strained‐bond concept also explains the otherwise anomalous stability of the hydration chain. © 1993 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.