Hubbry Logo
Hydrophobicity scalesHydrophobicity scalesMain
Open search
Hydrophobicity scales
Community hub
Hydrophobicity scales
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Hydrophobicity scales
Hydrophobicity scales
Hydrophobicity scales
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Hydrophobicity scales are values that define the relative hydrophobicity or hydrophilicity of amino acid residues. The more positive the value, the more hydrophobic are the amino acids located in that region of the protein. These scales are commonly used to predict the transmembrane alpha-helices of membrane proteins. When consecutively measuring amino acids of a protein, changes in value indicate attraction of specific protein regions towards the hydrophobic region inside lipid bilayer.

The hydrophobic or hydrophilic character of a compound or amino acid is its hydropathic character,[1] hydropathicity, or hydropathy.

Hydrophobicity and the hydrophobic effect

[edit]
Main article: Hydrophobic effect
Hydrogen bonds between molecules of liquid water

The hydrophobic effect represents the tendency of water to exclude non-polar molecules. The effect originates from the disruption of highly dynamic hydrogen bonds between molecules of liquid water. Polar chemical groups, such as OH group in methanol do not cause the hydrophobic effect. However, a pure hydrocarbon molecule, for example hexane, cannot accept or donate hydrogen bonds to water. Introduction of hexane into water causes disruption of the hydrogen bonding network between water molecules. The hydrogen bonds are partially reconstructed by building a water "cage" around the hexane molecule, similar to that in clathrate hydrates formed at lower temperatures. The mobility of water molecules in the "cage" (or solvation shell) is strongly restricted. This leads to significant losses in translational and rotational entropy of water molecules and makes the process unfavorable in terms of free energy of the system.[2][3][4][5] In terms of thermodynamics, the hydrophobic effect is the free energy change of water surrounding a solute.[6] A positive free energy change of the surrounding solvent indicates hydrophobicity, whereas a negative free energy change implies hydrophilicity. In this way, the hydrophobic effect not only can be localized but also decomposed into enthalpic and entropic contributions.

Types of amino acid hydrophobicity scales

[edit]
A table comparing four different scales for the hydrophobicity of an amino acid residue in a protein with the most hydrophobic amino acids on the top

A number of different hydrophobicity scales have been developed.[3][1][7][8][9] The Expasy Protscale website lists a total of 22 hydrophobicity scales.[10]

There are clear differences between the four scales shown in the table.[11] Both the second and fourth scales place cysteine as the most hydrophobic residue, unlike the other two scales. This difference is due to the different methods used to measure hydrophobicity. The method used to obtain the Janin and Rose et al. scales was to examine proteins with known 3-D structures and define the hydrophobic character as the tendency for a residue to be found inside of a protein rather than on its surface.[12][13] Since cysteine forms disulfide bonds that must occur inside a globular structure, cysteine is ranked as the most hydrophobic. The first and third scales are derived from the physiochemical properties of the amino acid side chains. These scales result mainly from inspection of the amino acid structures.[14][1] Biswas et al., divided the scales based on the method used to obtain the scale into five different categories.[3]

Partitioning methods

[edit]

The most common method of measuring amino acid hydrophobicity is partitioning between two immiscible liquid phases. Different organic solvents are most widely used to mimic the protein interior. However, organic solvents are slightly miscible with water and the characteristics of both phases change making it difficult to obtain pure hydrophobicity scale.[3] Nozaki and Tanford proposed the first major hydrophobicity scale for nine amino acids.[15] Ethanol and dioxane are used as the organic solvents and the free energy of transfer of each amino acid was calculated. Non liquid phases can also be used with partitioning methods such as micellar phases and vapor phases. Two scales have been developed using micellar phases.[16][17] Fendler et al. measured the partitioning of 14 radiolabeled amino acids using sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) micelles. Also, amino acid side chain affinity for water was measured using vapor phases.[14] Vapor phases represent the simplest non polar phases, because it has no interaction with the solute.[18] The hydration potential and its correlation to the appearance of amino acids on the surface of proteins was studied by Wolfenden. Aqueous and polymer phases were used in the development of a novel partitioning scale.[19] Partitioning methods have many drawbacks. First, it is difficult to mimic the protein interior.[20][21] In addition, the role of self solvation makes using free amino acids very difficult. Moreover, hydrogen bonds that are lost in the transfer to organic solvents are not reformed but often in the interior of protein.[22]

Accessible surface area methods

[edit]
Main article: Implicit solvation

Hydrophobicity scales can also be obtained by calculating the solvent accessible surface areas for amino acid residues in the expended polypeptide chain[22] or in alpha-helix and multiplying the surface areas by the empirical solvation parameters for the corresponding types of atoms.[3] A differential solvent accessible surface area hydrophobicity scale based on proteins as compacted networks near a critical point, due to self-organization by evolution, was constructed based on asymptotic power-law (self-similar) behavior.[23][24] This scale is based on a bioinformatic survey of 5526 high-resolution structures from the Protein Data Bank. This differential scale has two comparative advantages: (1) it is especially useful for treating changes in water-protein interactions that are too small to be accessible to conventional force-field calculations, and (2) for homologous structures, it can yield correlations with changes in properties from mutations in the amino acid sequences alone, without determining corresponding structural changes, either in vitro or in vivo.

Chromatographic methods

[edit]

Reversed phase liquid chromatography (RPLC) is the most important chromatographic method for measuring solute hydrophobicity.[3][25] The non polar stationary phase mimics biological membranes. Peptide usage has many advantages because partition is not extended by the terminal charges in RPLC. Also, secondary structures formation is avoided by using short sequence peptides. Derivatization of amino acids is necessary to ease its partition into a C18 bonded phase. Another scale had been developed in 1971 and used peptide retention on hydrophilic gel.[26] 1-butanol and pyridine were used as the mobile phase in this particular scale and glycine was used as the reference value. Pliska and his coworkers[27] used thin layer chromatography to relate mobility values of free amino acids to their hydrophobicities. About a decade ago, another hydrophilicity scale was published, this scale used normal phase liquid chromatography and showed the retention of 121 peptides on an amide-80 column.[28] The absolute values and relative rankings of hydrophobicity determined by chromatographic methods can be affected by a number of parameters. These parameters include the silica surface area and pore diameter, the choice and pH of aqueous buffer, temperature and the bonding density of stationary phase chains.[3]

Site-directed mutagenesis

[edit]

This method use DNA recombinant technology and it gives an actual measurement of protein stability. In his detailed site-directed mutagenesis studies, Utani and his coworkers substituted 19 amino acids at Trp49 of the tryptophan synthase and he measured the free energy of unfolding. They found that the increased stability is directly proportional to increase in hydrophobicity up to a certain size limit. The main disadvantage of site-directed mutagenesis method is that not all the 20 naturally occurring amino acids can substitute a single residue in a protein. Moreover, these methods have cost problems and is useful only for measuring protein stability.[3][29]

Physical property methods

[edit]
Wimley-White whole-residue hydrophobicity scales

The hydrophobicity scales developed by physical property methods are based on the measurement of different physical properties. Examples include, partial molar heat capacity, transition temperature and surface tension. Physical methods are easy to use and flexible in terms of solute. The most popular hydrophobicity scale was developed by measuring surface tension values for the naturally occurring 20 amino acids in NaCl solution.[30] The main drawbacks of surface tension measurements is that the broken hydrogen bonds and the neutralized charged groups remain at the solution air interface.[3][1] Another physical property method involve measuring the solvation free energy.[31] The solvation free energy is estimated as a product of an accessibility of an atom to the solvent and an atomic solvation parameter. Results indicate the solvation free energy lowers by an average of 1 Kcal/residue upon folding.[3]

Whole-residue octanol-scale hydropathy plot for the L-subunit of the photosynthetic reaction center of Rhodobacter sphaeroides.

Recent applications

[edit]

Palliser and Parry have examined about 100 scales and found that they can use them for locating B-strands on the surface of proteins.[32] Hydrophobicity scales were also used to predict the preservation of the genetic code.[33] Trinquier observed a new order of the bases that better reflect the conserved character of the genetic code.[3] They believed new ordering of the bases was uracil-guanine-cystosine-adenine (UGCA) better reflected the conserved character of the genetic code compared to the commonly seen ordering UCAG.[3]

Wimley–White whole residue hydrophobicity scales

[edit]

The Wimley–White whole residue hydrophobicity scales are significant for two reasons. First, they include the contributions of the peptide bonds as well as the sidechains, providing absolute values. Second, they are based on direct, experimentally determined values for transfer free energies of polypeptides.

Two whole-residue hydrophobicity scales have been measured:

  • One for the transfer of unfolded chains from water to the bilayer interface (referred to as the Wimley–White interfacial hydrophobicity scale).
  • One for the transfer of unfolded chains into octanol, which is relevant to the hydrocarbon core of a bilayer.

The Stephen H. White website[34] provides an example of whole residue hydrophobicity scales showing the free energy of transfer ΔG(kcal/mol) from water to POPC interface and to n-octanol.[34] These two scales are then used together to make Whole residue hydropathy plots.[34] The hydropathy plot constructed using ΔGwoct − ΔGwif shows favorable peaks on the absolute scale that correspond to the known TM helices. Thus, the whole residue hydropathy plots illustrate why transmembrane segments prefer a transmembrane location rather than a surface one.[35][36][37][38]

Amino acid Interface scale,
ΔGwif (kcal/mol) 		Octanol scale,
ΔGwoct (kcal/mol) 		Octanol − interface,
ΔGwoct − ΔGwif
Ile −0.31 −1.12 −0.81
Leu −0.56 −1.25 −0.69
Phe −1.13 −1.71 −0.58
Val 0.07 −0.46 −0.53
Met −0.23 −0.67 −0.44
Pro 0.45 0.14 −0.31
Trp −1.85 −2.09 −0.24
His0 0.17 0.11 −0.06
Thr 0.14 0.25 0.11
Glu0 −0.01 0.11 0.12
Gln 0.58 0.77 0.19
Cys −0.24 −0.02 0.22
Tyr −0.94 −0.71 0.23
Ala 0.17 0.50 0.33
Ser 0.13 0.46 0.33
Asn 0.42 0.85 0.43
Asp0 −0.07 0.43 0.50
Arg+ 0.81 1.81 1.00
Gly 0.01 1.15 1.14
His+ 0.96 2.33 1.37
Glu- 2.02 3.63 1.61
Lys+ 0.99 2.80 1.81
Asp- 1.23 3.64 2.41

Bandyopadhyay-Mehler protein structure based scales

[edit]

Most of the existing hydrophobicity scales are derived from the properties of amino acids in their free forms or as a part of a short peptide. Bandyopadhyay-Mehler hydrophobicity scale was based on partitioning of amino acids in the context of protein structure. Protein structure is a complex mosaic of various dielectric medium generated by arrangement of different amino acids. Hence, different parts of the protein structure most likely would behave as solvents with different dielectric values. For simplicity, each protein structure was considered as an immiscible mixture of two solvents, protein interior and protein exterior. The local environment around individual amino acid (termed as "micro-environment") was computed for both protein interior and protein exterior. The ratio gives the relative hydrophobicity scale for individual amino acids. Computation was trained on high resolution protein crystal structures. This quantitative descriptor for microenvironment was derived from the octanol-water partition coefficient, (known as Rekker's Fragmental Constants) widely used for pharmacophores. This scale well correlate with the existing methods, based on partitioning and free energy computations. Advantage of this scale is it is more realistic, as it is in the context of real protein structures.[9]

Scale based on contact angle of water nanodroplet

[edit]
Contact angles of a water nanodroplet on the artificial beta-sheets with various amino acid side chains
The MD simulation system and the structure of artificial beta-folding 2D peptide network composed of unified R-side chains.

In the field of engineering, the hydrophobicity (or dewetting ability) of a flat surface (e.g., a counter top in kitchen or a cooking pan) can be measured by the contact angle of water droplet. A University of Nebraska–Lincoln team devised a computational approach that can relate the molecular hydrophobicity scale of amino-acid chains to the contact angle of water nanodroplet.[39] The team constructed planar networks composed of unified amino-acid side chains with native structure of the beta-sheet protein. Using molecular dynamics simulation, the team is able to measure the contact angle of water nanodroplet on the planar networks (caHydrophobicity).

On the other hand, previous studies show that the minimum of excess chemical potential of a hard-sphere solute with respect to that in the bulk exhibits a linear dependence on cosine value of contact angle.[40] Based on the computed excess chemical potentials of the purely repulsive methane-sized Weeks–Chandler–Andersen solute with respect to that in the bulk, the extrapolated values of cosine value of contact angle are calculated(ccHydrophobicity), which can be used to quantify the hydrophobicity of amino acid side chains with complete wetting behaviors.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Hydrophobicity scales

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Hydrophobicity scales are numerical systems that assign values to the 20 standard based on their relative hydrophobic or hydrophilic properties, quantifying the tendency of their side chains to avoid or interact with . These scales are derived primarily from experimental measurements, such as partition coefficients between aqueous and organic phases or free energy changes during transfer from to nonpolar environments, providing a foundational tool for assessing the physicochemical behavior of in biological contexts. The development of hydrophobicity scales began in the early , with Tanford's seminal 1962 paper introducing the first such scale by compiling literature data on solubilities to evaluate hydrophobic contributions to protein globular stability. This was expanded in 1971 by Yuji Nozaki and Tanford, who established a more systematic scale through direct measurements of solubilities in aqueous and dioxane solutions, enabling quantitative predictions of hydrophobic effects in proteins. Since then, over 100 distinct scales have been formulated, incorporating diverse methodologies including vapor-to-water transfer free energies, retention times, and computational optimizations, reflecting ongoing refinements to capture context-specific aspects of hydrophobicity. Among the most influential scales is the Kyte-Doolittle hydropathy index, published in 1982, which combines experimental hydrophilicity data with burial tendencies in protein structures to identify hydrophobic regions like transmembrane helices, and remains a standard in bioinformatics tools for . Other notable examples include the Eisenberg consensus scale from 1984, which averages multiple experimental datasets for improved predictive power in secondary structure and membrane insertion, and the Wimley-White scales from 1996, which provide separate interfacial and octanol-based measures tailored to protein-lipid interactions. In protein science, hydrophobicity scales play a critical role in modeling folding pathways, predicting secondary structures such as α-helices and β-sheets, and analyzing topology, though their limitations—such as context-dependency and incomplete separation of structural classes—highlight the need for integrated approaches with other physicochemical parameters. Advances since 2020 continue to refine these scales, incorporating atomic-level details and to enhance accuracy in applications like and .

Fundamentals of Hydrophobicity

Hydrophobicity and the Hydrophobic Effect

Hydrophobicity refers to the of non-polar molecules or molecular groups that leads them to aggregate in aqueous environments, thereby minimizing their contact with molecules and reducing unfavorable interactions. This tendency arises because , a polar , forms strong bonds among its molecules, creating a highly ordered network that is disrupted by the presence of non-polar solutes. The describes the spontaneous organization of non-polar entities in , driven primarily by changes in the solvent's rather than direct attractive forces between the solutes. When a non-polar solute is introduced into , surrounding water molecules reorganize into a more structured, cage-like arrangement—often likened to clathrate or "" formations—to maintain their network while excluding the solute. This structuring increases the order of the water, decreasing its . Upon aggregation of non-polar solutes, these ordered water cages are disrupted, releasing water molecules into a less structured bulk state and increasing overall system , which favors the aggregation process. Thermodynamically, the hydrophobic effect is captured by the change for solute transfer or aggregation, given by ΔG=ΔH−TΔS\Delta G = \Delta H - T \Delta S where ΔG\Delta G is the free energy change, ΔH\Delta H is the change, TT is the , and ΔS\Delta S is the change. The process is typically characterized by a small or positive ΔH\Delta H (sometimes endothermic due to weak van der Waals attractions between solutes) but a large positive ΔS\Delta S from reorganization, making ΔG\Delta G negative and spontaneous at physiological temperatures. This entropic dominance distinguishes the hydrophobic effect from other intermolecular forces. The concept of hydrophobicity was first explored in the context of molecular orientation at interfaces by in his 1917 work on the properties of solids and liquids, where he described how amphiphilic molecules form monolayers with hydrophobic tails oriented away from water. It was Walter Kauzmann who formalized the in 1959, proposing it as a key driving force in by emphasizing the role of non-polar residue burial in stabilizing native structures. Representative examples of the hydrophobic effect include the self-assembly of amphiphilic molecules into micelles, where hydrophobic hydrocarbon tails cluster inward to avoid water, and the formation of lipid bilayers in cell membranes, with non-polar acyl chains sequestered in the interior while polar head groups interact with the aqueous environment.

Role in Protein Structure and Function

In globular proteins, hydrophobicity drives the burial of non-polar amino acid side chains within the protein interior, forming a compact hydrophobic core that minimizes contact with water and stabilizes the tertiary structure. This process, often termed hydrophobic collapse, is a primary determinant of folding efficiency and overall stability, as non-polar residues cluster to reduce the solvent-exposed surface area. Seminal work established that this hydrophobic effect provides the thermodynamic driving force for folding, outweighing other interactions like hydrogen bonding in many cases. In proteins, hydrophobicity plays a crucial role in embedding transmembrane segments into lipid bilayers, where hydrophobic exteriors of interact favorably with the non-polar hydrocarbon chains of membrane lipids. This partitioning ensures proper orientation and stability, with the degree of hydrophobicity influencing helix insertion and during . For instance, sufficiently hydrophobic helices are preferentially translocated across the membrane by the Sec61 translocon, preventing misfolding or degradation. Hydrophobicity also mediates protein-protein interactions by exposing complementary hydrophobic patches on partner surfaces, which desolvate upon association to form stable complexes. These interfaces are enriched in non-polar residues, contributing up to 50% of the binding free energy in many cases, as seen in antibody-antigen or enzyme-substrate complexes. Evolutionary pressures conserve hydrophobicity patterns across protein sequences, correlating with efficient folding and functional specificity; for example, contiguous hydrophobic motifs in ancient protein families show higher conservation than expected by chance, reflecting selection for structural integrity. Alterations in hydrophobicity due to can disrupt these processes, leading to pathological protein misfolding and aggregation. In , familial in the increase the hydrophobicity of the resulting amyloid-beta peptide, accelerating fibril formation and plaque deposition in the . Similarly, enhanced hydrophobic stretches promote beta-sheet propensity and oligomerization, linking such changes to neurodegenerative cascades.

Classification of Hydrophobicity Scales

Amino Acid Side-Chain Scales

Amino acid side-chain hydrophobicity scales assign numerical values to the 20 standard based primarily on the intrinsic physicochemical properties of their side chains, such as van der Waals volume, , and non-polar surface area, which determine their tendency to avoid aqueous environments. These scales emphasize the side chain's role in the , often derived from structural analyses of proteins where burial of non-polar surfaces correlates with stability. For instance, the scale developed by et al. quantifies hydrophobicity through the average buried upon , highlighting how larger non-polar side chains like those of and exhibit greater burial propensity compared to polar ones like serine. This approach underscores that hydrophobicity is not absolute but tied to the side chain's capacity to minimize through geometric and energetic factors. Prominent examples include the Black and Mould scale, which assesses side-chain hydrophobicity via transfer free energies of model compounds mimicking the side chains, revealing systematic trends where aliphatic residues rank highly hydrophobic and charged ones highly hydrophilic. Another key scale is the Eisenberg consensus, obtained by averaging values from multiple experimental sources to create a normalized profile that balances various side-chain attributes, such as polarity and size, for broad applicability in predicting and membrane interactions. These scales are statistically derived by correlating side-chain properties with experimental transfer free energies of analogs (e.g., N-acetyl amides) from water to organic solvents, ensuring the values reflect thermodynamic preferences independent of peptide context. Most side-chain scales normalize values to a common range, typically from approximately -2 (highly hydrophilic) to +2 (highly hydrophobic), facilitating comparisons across studies; for example, isoleucine (1.38) and valine (1.08) score positively on the Eisenberg scale, while arginine (-2.53) and aspartate (-0.90) score negatively. However, these scales have limitations, as they disregard contributions from the peptide backbone and local environmental effects, which can alter effective hydrophobicity in buried residues or dynamic protein regions, potentially leading to inaccuracies in structure prediction. Whole-residue scales extend these by incorporating backbone influences for refined accuracy.

Whole-Residue and Context-Dependent Scales

Whole-residue hydrophobicity scales assess the partitioning behavior of the entire unit, including the polar peptide backbone (-NH-CH(R)-CO-), rather than isolating the . This approach accounts for the backbone's inherent polarity, which partially offsets the hydrophobic contributions of non-polar s, particularly in unfolded polypeptide chains where the backbone is exposed to . Such scales are derived from experimental partitioning measurements, such as those into n-octanol or interfaces, using designed host-guest s to quantify the free energy changes (ΔG) for transfer from . A seminal example is the Wimley-White whole-residue scale, developed through equilibrium partitioning of Ac-X-LL and related peptides into POPC bilayers and octanol, yielding ΔG values that incorporate both side-chain and backbone effects. For instance, exhibits high hydrophobicity (ΔG ≈ -1.85 kcal/mol in the interface scale), while is moderately hydrophobic (ΔG ≈ -0.56 kcal/mol), reflecting their roles in interfaces. These scales provide a more realistic measure for unfolded states, improving predictions of protein compared to side-chain-only models. Context-dependent hydrophobicity scales extend this by varying assignments based on local protein environment, such as secondary structure or solvent exposure, recognizing that residue behavior is not fixed but influenced by conformational context. In alpha-helices, for example, hydrophobicity can differ from beta-sheets due to differences in side-chain orientation and hydrogen bonding, with beta-sheet residues often displaying enhanced effective hydrophobicity from burial of polar groups. A prominent context-dependent scale is that of Hessa et al. (2005), which quantifies the apparent free energy (ΔG_app) of transmembrane helix insertion into the ER membrane via the Sec61 translocon, showing positional dependence within helices—polar residues near the center incur higher penalties (up to +2 kcal/mol) than those at edges. Derived from in vitro glycosylation assays on leader peptidase constructs with systematic residue scans, this scale correlates well with biophysical partitioning data (slope ≈1.1) and enhances predictions of membrane protein topology by integrating helix-flanking and lipid interaction effects. These scales offer advantages in modeling intermediates and , as they capture dynamic environmental influences that static side-chain scales overlook, such as backbone in unfolded chains or positional costs in structured motifs. However, deriving them poses challenges, requiring controlled model peptides or molecular simulations to isolate residue-specific contributions amid confounding factors like secondary structure formation or translocon biases.

Experimental Methods for Deriving Scales

Partitioning and Solubility Methods

Partitioning experiments quantify hydrophobicity by measuring the equilibrium distribution of the or its analogs between an aqueous phase and a non-polar organic , such as octanol, , or vapor. The distribution is expressed as the coefficient log⁡P=log⁡([organic][aqueous])\log P = \log \left( \frac{[\text{organic}]}{[\text{aqueous}]} \right), where higher values indicate greater preference for the non-polar phase. This coefficient relates directly to the standard free energy of transfer ΔGtransfer=−RTln⁡P\Delta G_{\text{transfer}} = -RT \ln P from to the organic phase at temperature TT and RR, with hydrophobicity often scaled as H=−ΔGtransfer/RT=ln⁡PH = -\Delta G_{\text{transfer}} / RT = \ln P. To better approximate the environment of within peptides, model compounds such as N-acetyl amides are commonly used in these experiments, as the acetyl and amide groups mimic flanking peptide bonds and reduce artifacts from charged termini. A seminal example is the partitioning of these model compounds between and 1-octanol, which provided hydrophobic parameters π\pi for each based on measured log P values.90202-4) In the Nozaki-Tanford scale, solubilities of free and glycine peptides were determined in aqueous and dioxane solutions, enabling extrapolation of transfer free energies to purely non-polar phases like via linear relationships between composition and solubility.77210-X/fulltext) Solubility approaches derive hydrophobicity scales from the inverse relationship between an amino acid's solubility in water and its hydrophobic character, as poorly soluble residues exhibit stronger tendencies to avoid aqueous environments. Early compilations of amino acid solubilities in water, such as those by Cohn and colleagues, formed the basis for such scales by correlating low solubility with high hydrophobicity. Additionally, measurements of solubility in aqueous urea solutions reveal hydrophobic contributions, as urea enhances the solubility of non-polar amino acids by disrupting hydrophobic interactions, with the magnitude of solubility increase inversely reflecting intrinsic hydrophobicity. Historically, in the early , Wolfenden and coworkers advanced these methods by calculating free energies of transfer for side-chain analogs from the vapor phase (a non-polar reference) to neutral at 7, yielding a "hydration potential" scale that spans over 13 kcal/mol and highlights the strong water affinity of polar side chains like those of serine and . These partitioning and techniques provide intrinsic measures of hydrophobicity independent of protein context, though they can be cross-validated briefly with chromatographic retention times for consistency.

Chromatographic and Binding Methods

Chromatographic methods provide empirical measures of hydrophobicity by quantifying the interaction of peptides or derivatives with hydrophobic stationary phases under controlled conditions, where longer retention times indicate greater hydrophobicity. These techniques exploit the differential partitioning of solutes between a polar mobile phase and a non-polar stationary phase, allowing derivation of scales based on retention parameters such as volume or . Reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC) is a prominent example, utilizing alkylsilane-bonded silica columns (e.g., octadecyl or C18 phases) to separate analytes based on hydrophobic interactions, often with gradient from aqueous to organic solvents. In RP-HPLC, hydrophobicity scales are derived from the retention behavior of synthetic , deconvoluting the contributions of individual to the overall retention time. A seminal scale, developed by Meek, assigns hydrophobicity values to based on their additive effects on the retention times of 25 peptides measured on a C18 column using a at pH 2.1 or 7.4; for instance, exhibits high hydrophobicity (value ≈1.25), while shows low values (≈-1.65). The k′k', defined as k′=tR−t0t0k' = \frac{t_R - t_0}{t_0} where tRt_R is the retention time and t0t_0 the void time, is often logarithmically transformed (log k′k') to normalize the scale and facilitate linear correlations with hydrophobicity. This approach enables high-throughput analysis of peptide libraries and captures the relative hydrophobicity under near-physiological conditions. Hydrophobic interaction chromatography (HIC) complements RP-HPLC by employing mildly hydrophobic ligands (e.g., phenyl, butyl, or octyl groups) attached to matrices like , under high-salt conditions (e.g., ) that enhance hydrophobic associations without denaturing proteins. Retention times in correlate with the exposure of hydrophobic residues on protein or surfaces, allowing derivation of scales from profiles of model compounds. For example, normalized hydrophobicity HH can be calculated as H=Ve−V0V0H = \frac{V_e - V_0}{V_0}, where VeV_e is the volume and V0V_0 the void volume, providing a dimensionless measure of interaction strength; studies using alkyl-Sepharose columns have shown and with high HH values due to strong binding to butyl ligands. -based scales emphasize dynamic surface exposure in aqueous environments, differing from the more denaturing conditions of RP-HPLC. Binding methods assess hydrophobicity through the affinity of probes or ligands to hydrophobic sites, often revealing conformational influences not captured by static measures. Fluorescence quenching assays, using hydrophobic probes like cis-parinaric acid or ANS, quantify binding by monitoring enhanced fluorescence or quenching upon association with exposed non-polar regions in peptides or proteins; higher binding affinity indicates greater hydrophobicity, as seen in correlations between probe uptake and composition in model systems. These assays offer advantages in for peptides, capturing transient hydrophobic exposures under native-like conditions, and are particularly useful for validating scales derived from .

Accessible Surface Area Methods

Accessible surface area (SASA) methods for deriving hydrophobicity scales rely on structural data from protein databases to assess how much of each residue's surface is shielded from in folded proteins, thereby inferring its hydrophobic character based on burial tendencies. These approaches treat greater solvent exclusion as an indicator of hydrophobicity, as nonpolar residues preferentially occupy the protein interior to minimize unfavorable interactions with . By analyzing the exposure of residues across ensembles of known protein structures, SASA methods provide empirical scales that capture average burial behaviors in native contexts. The core calculation involves determining the percentage of a residue's surface exposed to solvent, typically using algorithms that roll a probe sphere (radius 1.4 Å, approximating water) over the protein surface to compute accessible areas. The buried area upon folding, denoted as ΔA=Aunfolded−Afolded\Delta A = A_{\text{unfolded}} - A_{\text{folded}}, quantifies the reduction in solvent exposure, where AunfoldedA_{\text{unfolded}} represents the residue's surface area in an extended, fully accessible state (often modeled as a Gly-X-Gly tripeptide) and AfoldedA_{\text{folded}} is the area in the native protein structure. A hydrophobicity index HH is then derived as a function of ΔA\Delta A, such as the fractional burial f=ΔA/Aunfoldedf = \Delta A / A_{\text{unfolded}}, with higher values assigned to residues that bury more area on average. This metric reflects the hydrophobic effect's role in driving residues inward during folding. Seminal implementations, such as the Rose scale, average ΔA\Delta A or ff values for each of the 20 across high-resolution structures from the (PDB). In the original work, 4,410 residues from 23 monomeric proteins were analyzed to compute mean buried areas, revealing a strong between burial and nonpolar character. Modern derivations expand this by using larger PDB datasets (thousands of structures) to enhance statistical robustness and account for diverse protein folds. An related formulation emphasizes normalized burial propensity, defined as P=observed fraction buried for residue type iexpected fraction if randomP = \frac{\text{observed fraction buried for residue type } i}{\text{expected fraction if random}}, which compares the actual occurrence of buried instances to a null model assuming uniform distribution across all residues. This propensity scale highlights deviations from , with P>1P > 1 indicating a hydrophobic preference for interior positioning. Such propensities are computed by classifying residues as buried (e.g., relative SASA < 7-20%) and aggregating over PDB entries. Despite their empirical strengths, SASA-based methods assume static, equilibrium structures from the PDB, which primarily include stable, folded proteins and may introduce biases toward evolutionarily optimized conformations while neglecting dynamic exposure changes or transient states. These scales can also be limited in distinguishing subtle functional differences due to their reliance on averaged structural data without energetic context.

Site-Directed Mutagenesis Methods

Site-directed mutagenesis methods derive hydrophobicity scales by introducing targeted amino acid substitutions into proteins and quantifying the resulting changes in thermodynamic stability, which reflect the energetic cost of exposing hydrophobic residues to solvent. Typically, hydrophobic residues such as leucine or isoleucine are mutated to alanine or glycine—a less hydrophobic reference—and the difference in free energy of unfolding (ΔΔG) between the wild-type and mutant proteins is calculated. This ΔΔG serves as a direct measure of the hydrophobic contribution, with positive values indicating destabilization due to loss of burial. Stability is assessed through thermal denaturation, monitored by circular dichroism spectroscopy to track secondary structure loss, or chemical denaturation using urea or guanidine hydrochloride, where unfolding curves are fitted to a two-state model to derive ΔG values at standard conditions. The hydrophobicity contribution of a residue can be approximated by the equation: ΔGhydro≈ΔΔG=ΔGWT−ΔGmut\Delta G_{\text{hydro}} \approx \Delta\Delta G = \Delta G_{\text{WT}} - \Delta G_{\text{mut}} where ΔG is the free energy of unfolding, and the mutation is from a hydrophobic to a hydrophilic residue. Seminal work using this approach on the model protein barnase in the 1990s involved creating mutants with disulfide crosslinks or side-chain truncations to isolate hydrophobic effects, revealing average stabilizations of 1-2 kcal/mol per buried methylene group (-CH₂-). For instance, Johnson et al. analyzed barnase variants, finding that hydrophobic core mutations led to ΔΔG values correlating with side-chain volume and burial, establishing early quantitative scales for residue-specific hydrophobicity in a folded context. These studies emphasized thermal and chemical denaturation protocols, with ΔΔG computed via linear extrapolation from denaturation midpoints. Applications of these methods highlight context-dependence, as ΔΔG magnitudes vary with residue : buried sites (e.g., >90% inaccessible) yield larger effects (∼1.1 kcal/mol per -CH₂-) than partially exposed ones (∼0.6 kcal/mol), necessitating normalization by for general scales. In barnase, mutations at core positions showed up to 3-fold greater destabilization than surface ones, underscoring how local environment modulates hydrophobicity. Recent comprehensive mutant libraries, enabled by high-throughput and deep mutational scanning, have expanded this to thousands of variants across diverse proteins; for example, Tsuboyama et al. (2023) surveyed folding stability in cellular contexts, confirming hydrophobic as a dominant stabilizer while revealing position-specific variations that refine empirical scales.

Computational and Theoretical Methods

Physical Property Calculations

Physical property calculations for hydrophobicity scales derive values from fundamental atomic or molecular attributes, such as partial charges, polarizabilities, and van der Waals parameters, without relying on direct experimental partitioning data. These approaches sum contributions from side-chain atoms, where hydrophobicity is quantified by metrics like the magnitude of partial charges (σ) or effects modulated by constants (ε), reflecting the energetic cost of . For instance, partial atomic charges from fields like CHARMM assign hydrophobicity based on polarity: nonpolar atoms with near-zero charges contribute positively to hydrophobicity, while charged atoms reduce it. A prominent example is the use of solvatochromic parameters developed by Abraham in the , which capture solvent-solute interactions through dipolarity/ (π*), hydrogen-bond acidity (α), and basicity (β). These parameters form the basis of linear solvation energy relationships (LSER) to predict transfer free energies, adapted for by correlating solute-specific coefficients with side-chain properties. The composite hydrophobicity (H) is often expressed as: H=aR2+bπ2H+c∑α2HH = a R_2 + b \pi_2^H + c \sum \alpha_2^H where R2R_2 represents excess molar refraction (accounting for dispersive effects), π2H\pi_2^H measures dipolarity/, and ∑α2H\sum \alpha_2^H quantifies hydrogen-bond acidity; coefficients a, b, c are fitted to reference data. This yields scales where is hydrophobic and serine less so. Quantum mechanical methods, particularly (DFT), compute hydrophobicity via interaction energies between side chains and water molecules. DFT optimizes side-chain geometries and calculates free energies or binding affinities, often using functionals like PBE with van der Waals corrections to include dispersive forces. These methods enable transferable scales for non-standard residues. These calculations offer key advantages: they are predictive, requiring no empirical measurements beyond parameter fitting, and highly transferable to modified amino acids or small molecules, unlike residue-specific experimental scales. Extensions to dynamic simulations refine these static properties by averaging over conformations, but core values stem from ab initio parameters.

Simulation and Data-Driven Approaches

Simulation and data-driven approaches to hydrophobicity scales leverage computational power to derive residue-specific hydrophobicity values from dynamic molecular processes and large-scale datasets, providing insights beyond static experimental measurements. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, in particular, compute free energy profiles for amino acid residue insertion into water or lipid membranes, capturing the thermodynamic costs of solvation and desolvation. These profiles are often generated using techniques like umbrella sampling, which biases the simulation to sample rare events such as residue transfer across interfaces, yielding potential of mean force (PMF) curves that quantify hydrophobicity as the free energy barrier for insertion. For instance, simulations of transmembrane helices have revealed depth-dependent hydrophobicity profiles, with nonpolar residues exhibiting lower insertion free energies in membrane cores compared to polar ones. Similarly, refinements to hydrophobicity parameters for MD simulations of membrane proteins account for local environmental effects in lipid bilayers using experimental solvation data. Data-driven methods further enhance scale derivation by applying regression or optimization algorithms to vast protein datasets, such as those from the (PDB), to correlate sequence features with observed biophysical properties. One approach optimizes hydrophobicity parameters HiH_i for each ii by minimizing the difference between predicted and experimental outcomes, formulated as: Hi=arg⁡min⁡∑(predicted property−observed property)H_i = \arg\min \sum ( \text{predicted property} - \text{observed property} ) where the sum is over training examples, and the property might include folding free energies or radii of gyration for unfolded states. As of 2025, efforts to adjust hydrophobicity in force fields for (IDPs) incorporate PDB-derived radii of gyration to improve predictions of behaviors like liquid-liquid . This method highlights how data-driven scales can integrate heterogeneous experimental data to produce context-aware hydrophobicity values. Machine learning techniques, including neural networks, extend these efforts by training on sequence and structure features to predict hydrophobicity directly from protein ensembles. models combining multiple hydrophobicity scales as input features have demonstrated superior classification of protein behaviors, such as or aggregation, by learning weighted combinations that outperform individual scales. Recent advances incorporate dewetting free energies, computed via indirect , to derive scales that explicitly account for entropic penalties in water exclusion around residues; these reveal higher hydrophobicity for aromatic side chains due to both enthalpic and entropic contributions, influencing intrinsically disordered protein conformations.

Notable Hydrophobicity Scales

Kyte-Doolittle Hydropathy Scale

The Kyte-Doolittle hydropathy scale, introduced in , assigns a numerical value to each of the 20 standard to quantify their relative hydrophobicity or hydrophilicity, with positive values indicating hydrophobic tendencies and negative values indicating hydrophilic ones. The scale ranges from +4.5 for the most hydrophobic residue () to -4.5 for the most hydrophilic (). It was derived by combining experimental data on the free energies of transfer of side chains from water to vapor, as reported by Wolfenden et al., with structural data on the fractional of side chains in protein interiors from Chothia. These sources were amalgamated and normalized to the -4.5 to +4.5 range, with subjective adjustments applied to certain residues like and due to ambiguities in available data. The full set of hydropathy indices is as follows:
Amino AcidThree-Letter CodeHydropathy Index
Ile+4.5
Val+4.2
Leu+3.8
Phe+2.8
Cys+2.5
Met+1.9
Ala+1.8
Gly-0.4
Thr-0.7
SerineSer-0.8
Trp-0.9
Tyr-1.3
Pro-1.6
His-3.2
Glu-3.5
Gln-3.5
Asp-3.5
Asn-3.5
Lys-3.9
Arg-4.5
These values emphasize side-chain properties but incorporate burial propensities from folded proteins. The scale is primarily applied through hydropathy plots, which visualize the distribution of hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions along a protein . These plots are generated using a sliding-window approach, where the average hydropathy index is calculated for consecutive segments of the . For predicting transmembrane segments, a window size of 19 to 21 residues is commonly used, as this length approximates the span of an across a . The average hydropathy HiH_i at position ii for a window of width ww is given by: Hi=1w∑j=ii+w−1hjH_i = \frac{1}{w} \sum_{j = i}^{i + w - 1} h_j where hjh_j is the hydropathy index of the jj-th residue. Segments with Hi>1.6H_i > 1.6 typically indicate potential transmembrane helices. This method has been instrumental in identifying membrane-spanning domains in proteins like bacteriorhodopsin. Despite its widespread adoption, the Kyte-Doolittle scale has limitations stemming from its derivation. The reliance on a limited for burial fractions can introduce biases from in protein structures, leading to an overemphasis on interior-exterior distributions rather than direct properties. Additionally, as a side-chain-focused scale, it does not fully account for the contributions of backbones in whole-residue contexts, such as partitioning experiments, rendering it less suitable for modern applications requiring comprehensive transfer free energies. Reviews of hydrophobicity scales highlight its modest separation capacity (threshold ~0.6) for classifying structures compared to newer methods, and it performs poorly in predicting certain biophysical properties like hydrophobic interaction retention times due to its hybrid experimental-structural basis.

Wimley-White Whole-Residue Scale

The Wimley-White whole-residue hydrophobicity scale quantifies the free energy of transferring individual residues, including their associated backbone, from to either n-octanol or the interface of 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (POPC) bilayers. Developed in the mid-1990s, the scale relies on partitioning experiments with designed host-guest of the form Ac-WL-X-LL, where X denotes each of the 20 natural and the flanking residues ( and leucines) provide a neutral, soluble context to isolate X's contribution without secondary structure interference. Partitioning equilibria were measured using reverse-phase (HPLC) for octanol- systems and equilibrium dialysis for bilayer interfaces, allowing precise determination of residue-specific energetics. The free energy of transfer from to the interface (or octanol), denoted ΔG_{w \to i}, is derived from the measured equilibrium partition constants via the relation \Delta G_{w \to i} = -RT \ln(K_\text{partition}), where R is the , T is the absolute , and K_\text{partition} is the of concentrations in the interface (or octanol) to at equilibrium. Unlike side-chain-only scales, this approach explicitly includes backbone contributions, estimated at approximately +1.23 kcal/mol per for interfacial transfer due to the penalty of polar groups, which must be offset by hydrogen bonding or structure formation in proteins. A key feature of the Wimley-White scale is its biphasic character, yielding distinct hydrophobicity profiles for bulk organic solvents like n-octanol versus membrane interfaces formed by POPC bilayers, reflecting differences in polarity, bonding capacity, and at these environments. For instance, the amphipathic residue exhibits ΔG_{w \to i} = -1.85 kcal/mol for POPC interfaces and -2.09 kcal/mol for n-octanol, highlighting its preference for interfacial positioning where its ring can engage both hydrophobic acyl chains and polar headgroups. , a small nonpolar residue, shows milder values of +0.17 kcal/mol to POPC interfaces and +0.50 kcal/mol to n-octanol, underscoring its relative neutrality compared to aromatics or aliphatics. The scale's utility lies in its application to membrane protein biogenesis and folding, particularly for predicting the energetic feasibility of alpha-helical insertion across lipid bilayers by aggregating ΔG values over sequence windows of 18-20 residues to identify insertion thresholds below approximately -4 to -6 kcal/mol total. This has proven effective for analyzing transmembrane helix propensity in bacterial and eukaryotic s, bridging experimental partitioning data with biophysical predictions of stability.

Bandyopadhyay-Mehler Structure-Based Scale

The Bandyopadhyay-Mehler structure-based scale is a hydrophobicity measure derived from atomic parameters analyzed within protein environments, utilizing a dataset of 733 high-resolution protein structures from the (PDB). Developed in 2008 by Debashree Bandyopadhyay and Ernest L. Mehler, the scale quantifies the hydrophobicity of side chains by evaluating their response to the local microenvironment (MENV), defined as the atoms within the first . This approach partitions protein interiors into hydrophobic and hydrophilic domains based on fragmental constants, providing values entirely contextualized to folded protein architectures rather than experimental transfer data. The scale's derivation involves calculating the hydrophobicity index for each atom in a side chain as the sum of contributions from surrounding fragments, weighted by their proximity and type: HpyA=∑NA∑NBbmax⁡{f(db(rab))}FbH_{py_A} = \sum_{N_A} \sum_{N_B} b \max\{f(d_b(r_{ab}))\} F_b (where B≠AB \neq A, FbF_b are fragmental hydrophobic constants, and ff is a distance function). The total hydrophobicity is then adjusted for burial: THpy=f⋅Hpy+(1−f)⋅HpysTHpy = f \cdot Hpy + (1 - f) \cdot Hpy_s, with ff as the buried fraction derived from solvent-accessible surface area calculations, and HpysHpy_s as the solvent-exposed baseline. Key features include differentiation of carbon atom types—such as aliphatic (e.g., -CH3 groups) versus aromatic (e.g., phenyl rings)—to capture varying hydrophobic potentials, and incorporation of structural context through implicit local dielectric effects via distance-dependent interactions in the MENV. This granularity allows the scale to reflect how side chain burial modulates solvation in protein cores. Advantages of the scale lie in its ability to account for charge burial effects in folded states, enabling predictions of pKa shifts and electrostatic responses without reliance on external models, which often introduce uncertainties from hydrogen bonding. Normalized indices (rHpy = THpy / Hpy_s) correlate strongly with established scales (correlation coefficients 0.77–0.95), validating its use for internal protein energetics. In applications, it refines folding potentials by estimating free energy changes upon residue substitution, such as ΔGA=HA(rHpyIA−rHpyJA)\Delta G_A = H_A (rHpy_{I_A} - rHpy_{J_A}), aiding structure-function predictions and .

Contact Angle Nanodroplet Scale

The Contact Angle Nanodroplet Scale characterizes the hydrophobicity of side chains by simulating the behavior of nanodroplets on surfaces modeled after protein environments. This approach uses (MD) simulations to place nanodroplets on artificial planar networks that mimic β-sheet secondary structures, incorporating the primary sequences of . These networks represent self-assembled monolayers of , allowing the computation of contact angles for all 20 standard in a controlled, nanoscale setting. Developed in a 2016 study, this method provides a protein-contextualized measure of hydrophobicity that accounts for local interfacial interactions. The core metric of the scale is the cosine of the (cos θ), where θ is the angle formed by the nanodroplet at the peptide- interface. A θ greater than 90° signifies hydrophobicity, resulting in a negative cos θ value, while θ less than 90° indicates hydrophilicity with a positive cos θ. For example, (Leu) exhibits θ ≈ 110°, yielding cos θ ≈ -0.34, marking it as highly hydrophobic. The hydrophobicity is quantitatively linked to 1 - cos θ, which increases as θ rises, reflecting greater repulsion. This relation ties directly to Young's equation, cos θ = (γ_sv - γ_sl) / γ_lv, where γ_sv, γ_sl, and γ_lv are the solid-vapor, solid-liquid, and liquid-vapor interfacial tensions, respectively; thus, lower cos θ corresponds to higher solid-liquid tension, enhancing the scale's connection to thermodynamic hydrophobicity. In simulations, θ is determined by fitting the time-averaged density profile to a circular isochore line at the liquid-vapor interface. A key novelty of this scale lies in its use of nanodroplets, which capture effects and local dynamics at the nanoscale—phenomena absent in traditional bulk measurements on macroscopic surfaces. This enables a more precise simulation of behavior within protein interiors, bridging biophysical with principles. The resulting scale correlates s with excess chemical potentials of solute transfer, such as Δμ_ex^int ≈ 4.15 cos θ - 7.01 kJ/mol for interfacial , providing a unified framework for hydrophobicity assessment. Despite its advantages, the scale is inherently computational, relying on MD simulations that approximate real protein dynamics and may require empirical validation through direct experiments. Variations in θ among nonpolar are small (Δθ < 16°), potentially limiting resolution, and the model assumes idealized β-sheet conformations that might not fully represent diverse protein folds.

Applications and Recent Developments

Protein Folding and Design Applications

Hydrophobicity scales play a central role in predicting protein folding pathways by modeling the hydrophobic collapse, where non-polar residues aggregate to minimize solvent exposure, initiating the transition from unfolded to compact states. This process is driven by hydrophobicity gradients along the polypeptide chain, which guide the burial of hydrophobic segments and stabilize the molten globule intermediate. Early computational models incorporated scales like Kyte-Doolittle to identify hydrophobic regions and simulate collapse dynamics in lattice-based folding simulations. In de novo protein design, hydrophobicity scales inform the optimization of interior cores to enhance thermodynamic stability, ensuring that designed sequences fold into target structures with minimal exposed non-polar surface area. Software such as uses implicit solvation terms derived from hydrophobicity principles to score and refine sequences, favoring buried hydrophobic residues while penalizing surface exposure. For instance, the Wimley-White scale has been integrated into design protocols to quantify residue partitioning and validate core packing in novel folds. Mutational analysis leverages hydrophobicity scales to forecast changes in folding stability (ΔΔG) by assessing how amino acid substitutions alter buried hydrophobic interactions. A decrease in core hydrophobicity often correlates with reduced stability, while enhancements can increase ΔΔG by up to 2-3 kcal/mol per residue, guiding therapeutic engineering of variants with improved folding efficiency. Sequence-based predictors incorporate hydrophobicity differences (e.g., ΔH) alongside structural context to estimate these effects, achieving correlations of ~0.6 with experimental ΔΔG values. A notable case study from the Baker laboratory in the 2010s demonstrates the application of hydrophobicity optimization in designing hyperstable proteins, such as constrained helical peptides with melting temperatures exceeding 100°C. By iteratively refining hydrophobic cores using Rosetta's energy function—emphasizing non-polar packing while constraining backbone geometry—these designs achieved experimental stabilities far surpassing natural homologs, with buried surface areas optimized to ~80% hydrophobic composition. Hydrophobicity scales are integrated into comprehensive energy functions alongside other forces, such as hydrogen bonding, to balance intramolecular interactions during folding simulations and design. In Rosetta, solvation penalties from hydrophobicity terms are offset by favorable hydrogen bond geometries, ensuring realistic prediction of native-like minima where hydrophobic burial complements polar network formation. This multifaceted approach captures the cooperative nature of folding, where hydrophobic driving forces initiate collapse and hydrogen bonds fine-tune secondary structure consolidation.

Advances in Biophysical Predictions (2020-2025)

Recent advances in hydrophobicity scales from 2020 to 2025 have enhanced biophysical predictions by integrating data-driven methods, machine learning, and nanoscale simulations, particularly for complex protein behaviors such as antibody aggregation and intrinsically disordered protein (IDP) compaction. These developments address limitations in traditional scales by incorporating context-dependent factors like solvent accessibility and free energy contributions, enabling more accurate forecasts of retention times in hydrophobic interaction chromatography (HIC) and structural propensities in disordered regions. In antibody engineering, a 2022 study evaluated over 10 hydrophobicity scales for predicting HIC retention times and aggregation risks in monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), revealing that scales accounting for solvent-accessible surface area, such as the Eisenberg consensus scale, outperformed others in correlating with experimental retention data across 20+ mAbs. This comparison highlighted the superiority of weighted scoring schemes that normalize for residue burial, achieving correlation coefficients up to 0.85 for HIC elution volumes and identifying high-risk hydrophobic patches linked to aggregation propensity. Such scale-based predictions aid in early-stage developability assessments, reducing aggregation-related failures in therapeutic candidates. For IDPs, data-driven hydrophobicity scales have been optimized to predict compaction and phase separation, with a 2021 scale derived from liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) datasets showing strong correlations (R² > 0.7) with measurements in unfolded states. This approach uses to train on experimental compaction data, emphasizing sequence motifs that drive intramolecular hydrophobic collapse, and extends to 2024 models like , which integrate hydrophobicity features for ensemble predictions of IDP dimensions under physiological conditions. These scales improve forecasts of IDP conformational ensembles, crucial for understanding functions in signaling and disease. Hydrophobic cluster analysis (HCA) tools have advanced to proteome-scale applications, as reviewed in 2025, enabling interaction predictions by mapping hydrophobic clusters onto two-dimensional representations that incorporate predicted secondary structures. This method identifies interaction interfaces across entire proteomes, with accuracy exceeding 80% for partner binding sites in benchmark datasets, facilitating large-scale annotations of protein-protein interactions driven by hydrophobic complementarity. Dewetting-based hydrophobicity scales, introduced in a 2025 study, quantify free energy costs for nanoscale water exclusion around , decomposing contributions into entropic (dominating at small scales) and enthalpic terms via grid inhomogeneous theory simulations. Applied to IDPs, this scale reveals context-dependent hydrophobicity variations, with non-polar residues like showing ΔG_dewet up to 5 kcal/mol higher than polar ones, enhancing predictions of collapse transitions in confined environments. Machine learning ensembles combining multiple hydrophobicity scales have demonstrated superior classification accuracy for classes, as shown in a 2020 analysis using ensembles on chimeric virus-like particles. These ensembles, integrating scales like Kyte-Doolittle and , achieved up to 95% accuracy in predicting and folding propensity across diverse sequences, outperforming individual scales by 15-20% through that weights context-specific hydrophobicity.

References

  1. https://biolres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40659-016-0092-5
  2. https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(19)77210-X/fulltext
  3. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ja00881a009
  4. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.201813954
  5. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2836(82)90515-0
  6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nsb1096-842
  7. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/molecular-biosciences/articles/10.3389/fmolb.2022.960194/full
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9609269/
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/materials-science/hydrophobic-effect
  10. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_%28Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry%29/Physical_Properties_of_Matter/Atomic_and_Molecular_Properties/Intermolecular_Forces/Hydrophobic_Interactions
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5024328/
  12. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0504089102
  13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26871/
  14. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep28285
  15. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1610541113
  16. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1605888113
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2566606/
  18. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116267119
  19. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0605629103
  20. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.4023714
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4932767/
  22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(91)90045-U
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022283684903097
  24. https://web.expasy.org/protscale/pscale/Hphob.Eisenberg.html
  25. https://blanco.biomol.uci.edu/hydrophobicity_scales.html
  26. https://www.nature.com/articles/nsb1096-842
  27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15674282/
  28. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232284971_Amino_Acid_Solubility_and_Hydrophobic_Interactions_in_Proteins_the_Work_of_Charles_Tanford
  29. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6929513/
  30. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021967305016857
  31. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16314160/
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005279580902202
  33. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7407231/
  34. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19334678/
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4441443/
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2286732/
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3086625/
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022283697909281
  39. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/bi00020a026
  40. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06328-6
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392667026_Amino_acids_hydrophobic_properties_in_proteins_are_derived_from_their_atomic_polarities
  42. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cr020750m
  43. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1616138113
  44. https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S0219633604000891
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006349510009689
  46. https://peerj.com/articles/4230/
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12257530/
  48. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioengineering-and-biotechnology/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2020.00395/full
  49. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpcb.4c06399
  50. https://web.expasy.org/protscale/protscale-doc.html
  51. https://resources.qiagenbioinformatics.com/manuals/clcgenomicsworkbench/650/Hydrophobicity_scales.html
  52. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/prot.21958
  53. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18247345/
  54. https://cysduf.bits-hyderabad.ac.in/static/Proteins2008.pdf
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5604469/
  56. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0803264105
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5717763/
  58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231247804_Using_the_Wimley-White_Hydrophobicity_Scale_as_a_Direct_Quantitative_Test_of_Force_Fields_The_MARTINI_Coarse-Grained_Model
  59. https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-11-S2-S5
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5161715/
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022283603000214
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9475378/
  63. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33876938/
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10927563/
  65. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40651689/
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7217080/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.