Abstract
Due to possible contribution of both electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions, use of anionic fluorescent probes such as 1-anilinonaphthalene-8-sulfonic acid (ANS) and cis-parinaric acid (CPA) for the measurement of protein surface hydrophobicity (S0) has been controversial. A neutral probe, 6-propionyl-2-(dimethylamino)-naphthalene (PRODAN), may circumvent this problem. To select the best indicator of S0, in this study, the data for nine model proteins in phosphate buffer, pH 7.5, measured using the above-mentioned probes, was compared to their FT-Raman spectra and calculated solvent accessibility values. Log S0 measured using CPA had the highest correlation (r = 0.874) with the intensities of Raman spectral signals at 760 cm(-1) and 2800-3100 cm(-1), which were combined using a mixture design based on the random-centroid optimization. The order of correlation of Raman spectral parameters with S0 values were CPA > PRODAN > ANS. FT-Raman spectroscopy, therefore, identified CPA, followed by PRODAN, as the fluorescent probe of choice for describing surface hydrophobicity. However, the amino acid surface accessibility calculated using the PredictProtein software was not useful in identifying the best fluorescent probe for the measurement of S0.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
