When Szent-Gyorgyi called water the “matrix of life”,1 he was echoing an old sentiment. Paracelsus in the 16th century said that “water was the matrix of the world and of all its creatures.”2 But Paracelsus’s notion of a matrixsan active substance imbued with fecund, life-giving propertiess was quite different from the picture that, until very recently, molecular biologists have tended to hold of water’s role in the chemistry of life. Although acknowledging that liquid water has some unusual and important physical and chemical propertiessits potency as a solvent, its ability to form hydrogen bonds, its amphoteric naturesbiologists have regarded it essentially as the backdrop on which life’s molecular components are arrayed. It used to be common practice, for example, to perform computer simulations of biomolecules in a vacuum. Partly this was because the computational intensity of simulating a polypeptide chain was challenging even without accounting for solvent molecules too, but it also reflected the prevailing notion that water does little more than temper or moderate the basic physicochemical interactions responsible for molecular biology. What Gerstein and Levitt said 9 years ago remains true today: “When scientists publish models of biological molecules in journals, they usually draw their models in bright colors and place them against a plain, black background”.3 Curiously, this neglect of water as an active component of the cell went hand in hand with the assumption that life could not exist without it. That was basically an empirical conclusion derived from our experience of life on Earth: environments without liquid water cannot sustain life, and special strategies are needed to cope with situations in which, because of extremes of either heat or cold, the liquid is scarce.4-6 The recent confirmation that there is at least one world rich in organic molecules on which rivers and perhaps shallow seas or bogs are filled with nonaqueous fluidsthe liquid hydrocarbons of Titan7smight now bring some focus, even urgency, to the question of whether water is indeed a * E-mail: p.ball@nature.com. Philip Ball is a science writer and a consultant editor for Nature, where he worked as an editor for physical sciences for more than 10 years. He holds a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Bristol, where he worked on the statistical mechanics of phase transitions in the liquid state. His book H2O: A Biography of Water (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1999) was a survey of the current state of knowledge about the behavior of water in situations ranging from planetary geomorphology to cell biology. He frequently writes about aspects of water science for both the popular and the technical media.

https://www.philipball.co.uk/images/stories/docs/pdf/ChemRev_final.pdf

Water as an Active Constituent in Cell Biology

This article presents evidence for the existence of a specific linear relationship between the entropy change and the enthalpy change in a variety of processes of small solutes in water solution. The processes include solvation of ions and nonelectrolytes, hydrolysis, oxidation–reduction, ionization of weak electrolytes, and quenching of indole fluorescence among others. The values of the proportionality constant, called the compensation temperature, lie in a relatively narrow range, from about 250 to 315 °K, for all these processes. Such behavior can be a consequence of experimental errors but for a number of the processes the precision of the data is sufficient to show that the enthalpy–entropy compensation pattern is real. It is tentatively concluded that the pattern is real, very common and a consequence of the properties of liquid water as a solvent regardless of the solutes and the solute processes studied. As such the phenomenon requires that theoretical treatments of solute processes in water be expanded by inclusion of a specific treatment of the characteristic of water responsible for compensation behavior. The possible bases of the effect are proposed to be temperature-independent heat-capacity changes and/or shifts in concentrations of the two phenomenologically significant species of water. The relationship of these alternatives to the two-state process of water suggested by spectroscopic and relaxation studies is examined. The existence of a similar and probably identical relationship between enthalpy and entropy change in a variety of protein reactions suggests that liquid water plays a direct role in many protein processes and may be a common participant in the physiological function of proteins. It is proposed that the linear enthalpy–entropy relationship be used as a diagnostic test for the participation of water in protein processes. On this basis the catalytic processes of chymotrypsin and acetylcholinesterase are dominated by the properties of bulk water. The binding of oxygen by hemoglobin may fall in the same category. Similarities and differences in the behavior of small-solute and protein processes are examined to show how they may be related. No positive conclusions are established, but it is possible that protein processes are coupled to water via expansions and contractions of the protein and that in general the special pattern of enthalpy–entropy compensation is a consequent of the properties of water which require that expansions and contractions of solutes effect changes in the free volume of the nearby liquid water. It is shown that proteins can be expected to respond to changes in nearby water and interfacial free energy by expansions and contractions. Such responses may explain a variety of currently unexplained characteristics of protein solutions. More generally, the enthalpy–entropy compensation pattern appears to be the thermodynamic manifestation of “structure making” and “structure breaking,” operationally defined terms much used in discussions of water solutions. If so, the compensation pattern is ubiquitous and requires re-examination of a large body of molecular interpretations derived from quantitative studies of processes in water. Theories of processes in water may have to be expanded to accommodate this aspect of water behavior.

Enthalpy-entropy compensation phenomena in water solutions of proteins and small molecules: a ubiquitous property of water.

Water is essential for life in many ways, and without it biomolecules might no longer truly be biomolecules. In particular, water is important to the structure, stability, dynamics, and function of biological macromolecules. In protein folding, water mediates the collapse of the chain and the search for the native topology through a funneled energy landscape. Water actively participates in molecular recognition by mediating the interactions between binding partners and contributes to either enthalpic or entropic stabilization. Accordingly, water must be included in recognition and structure prediction codes to capture specificity. Thus water should not be treated as an inert environment, but rather as an integral and active component of biomolecular systems, where it has both dynamic and structural roles. Focusing on water sheds light on the physics and function of biological machinery and self-assembly and may advance our understanding of the natural design of proteins and nucleic acids.

/pdf/water-mediation-in-protein-folding-and-molecular-recognition-24k5x5yaf3.pdf

Water mediation in protein folding and molecular recognition

The mechanism of denaturation of proteins by urea is explored by using all-atom microseconds molecular dynamics simulations of hen lysozyme generated on BlueGene/L Accumulation of urea around lysozyme shows that water molecules are expelled from the first hydration shell of the protein We observe a 2-stage penetration of the protein, with urea penetrating the hydrophobic core before water, forming a "dry globule" The direct dispersion interaction between urea and the protein backbone and side chains is stronger than for water, which gives rise to the intrusion of urea into the protein interior and to urea's preferential binding to all regions of the protein This is augmented by preferential hydrogen bond formation between the urea carbonyl and the backbone amides that contributes to the breaking of intrabackbone hydrogen bonds Our study supports the "direct interaction mechanism" whereby urea has a stronger dispersion interaction with protein than water

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/105/44/16928.full.pdf

Urea denaturation by stronger dispersion interactions with proteins than water implies a 2-stage unfolding

Proteins are marginally stable, and the folding/unfolding equilibrium of proteins in aqueous solution can easily be altered by the addition of small organic molecules known as cosolvents. Cosolvents that shift the equilibrium toward the unfolded ensemble are termed denaturants, whereas those that favor the folded ensemble are known as protecting osmolytes. Urea is a widely used denaturant in protein folding studies, and the molecular mechanism of its action has been vigorously debated in the literature. Here we review recent experimental as well as computational studies that show an emerging consensus in this problem. Urea has been shown to denature proteins through a direct mechanism, by interacting favorably with the peptide backbone as well as the amino acid side chains. In contrast, the molecular mechanism by which the naturally occurring protecting osmolyte trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO) stabilizes proteins is not clear. Recent studies have established the strong interaction of TMAO with water. Detailed molecular simulations, when used with force fields that incorporate these interactions, can provide insight into this problem. We present the development of a model for TMAO that is consistent with experimental observations and that provides physical insight into the role of cosolvent-cosolvent interaction in determining its preferential interaction with proteins.

Cosolvent Effects on Protein Stability

The finding of Wetlaufer et al., that addition of urea to water increases the (mole fraction) solubility of hydrocarbon gases (except methane) while making them dissolve with a smaller evolution of heat, is interpreted as a primarily statistical phenomenon. For this purpose, it is treated in terms of a skeleton model in which not only is water represented as a two‐species mixture of dense and bulky constituents but the dissolved hydrocarbon is represented as dissolving separately in these constituents, as if it were distributed between two phases, i.e., between a quasiclathrate solution in the bulky constituent and a quasilattice or “regular” solution in the dense one. Added urea is pictured as being able to enter only one of the solutions, the quasilattice one in the dense water, with the result that it acts as a structure breaker. A statistical‐thermodynamic analysis of this model leads to equations for the chemical potentials and the partial molal enthalpies and entropies of the hydrocarbon and the ure...

Felix Franks

Papers

Structural Approach to the Solvent Power of Water for Hydrocarbons; Urea as a Structure Breaker