Starting from known properties of non-specific salt effects on the surface tension at an air–water interface, we propose the first general, detailed qualitative molecular mechanism for the origins of ion-specific (Hofmeister) effects on the surface potential difference at an air–water interface; this mechanism suggests a simple model for the behaviour of water at all interfaces (including water–solute interfaces), regardless of whether the non-aqueous component is neutral or charged, polar or non-polar Specifically, water near an isolated interface is conceptually divided into three layers, each layer being 1 water-molecule thick We propose that the solute determines the behaviour of the adjacent first interfacial water layer ( I 1 ); that the bulk solution determines the behaviour of the third interfacial water layer ( I 3 ), and that both I 1 and I 3 compete for hydrogen-bonding interactions with the intervening water layer ( I 2 ), which can be thought of as a transition layer The model requires that a polar kosmotrope (polar water-structure maker) interact with I 1 more strongly than would bulk water in its place; that a chaotrope (water-structure breaker) interact with I 1 somewhat less strongly than would bulk water in its place; and that a non-polar kosmotrope (non-polar water-structure maker) interact with I 1 much less strongly than would bulk water in its place We introduce two simple new postulates to describe the behaviour of I 1 water molecules in aqueous solution The first, the ‘relative competition’ postulate, states that an I 1 water molecule, in maximizing its free energy (—δG), will favour those of its highly directional polar (hydrogen-bonding) interactions with its immediate neighbours for which the maximum pairwise enthalpy of interaction (—δ H ) is greatest; that is, it will favour the strongest interactions We describe such behaviour as ‘compliant’, since an I 1 water molecule will continually adjust its position to maximize these strong interactions Its behaviour towards its remaining immediate neighbours, with whom it interacts relatively weakly (but still favourably), we describe as ‘recalcitrant’, since it will be unable to adjust its position to maximize simultaneously these interactions The second, the ‘charge transfer’ postulate, states that the strong polar kosmotrope–water interaction has at least a small amount of covalent character, resulting in significant transfer of charge from polar kosmotropes to water–especially of negative charge from Lewis bases (both neutral and anionic); and that the water-structuring effect of polar kosmotropes is caused not only by the tight binding (partial immobilization) of the immediately adjacent ( I 1 ) water molecules, but also by an attempt to distribute among several water molecules the charge transferred from the solute When extensive, cumulative charge transfer to solvent occurs, as with macromolecular polyphosphates, the solvation layer (the layer of solvent whose behaviour is determined by the solute) can become up to 5- or 6-water-molecules thick We then use the ‘relative competition’ postulate, which lends itself to simple diagramming, in conjunction with the ‘charge transfer’ postulate to provide a new, startlingly simple and direct qualitative explanation for the heat of dilution of neutral polar solutes and the temperature dependence of relative viscosity of neutral polar solutes in aqueous solution This explanation also requires the new and intriguing general conclusion that as the temperature of aqueous solutions is lowered towards o °C, solutes tend to acquire a non-uniform distribution in the solution, becoming increasingly likely to cluster 2 water molecules away from other solutes and surfaces (the driving force for this process being the conversion of transition layer water to bulk water) The implications of these conclusions for understanding the mechanism of action of general (gaseous) anaesthetics and other important interfacial phenomena are then addressed

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0033583500005369

The Hofmeister effect and the behaviour of water at interfaces.

▪ Abstract Virtually every cell type in metazoan organisms produces heparan sulfate. These complex polysaccharides provide docking sites for numerous protein ligands and receptors involved in diverse biological processes, including growth control, signal transduction, cell adhesion, hemostasis, and lipid metabolism. The binding sites consist of relatively small tracts of variably sulfated glucosamine and uronic acid residues in specific arrangements. Their formation occurs in a tissue-specific fashion, generated by the action of a large family of enzymes involved in nucleotide sugar metabolism, polymer formation (glycosyltransferases), and chain processing (sulfotransferases and an epimerase). New insights into the specificity and organization of the biosynthetic apparatus have emerged from genetic studies of cultured cells, nematodes, fruit flies, zebrafish, rodents, and humans. This review covers recent developments in the field and provides a resource for investigators interested in the incredible dive...

Order out of chaos: assembly of ligand binding sites in heparan sulfate.

The primary sequence of two components of the dystrophin–glycoprotein complex has been established by complementary DNA cloning. The transmembrane 43K and extracellular 156K dystrophin-associated glycoproteins (DAGs) are encoded by a single messenger RNA and the extracellular 156K DAG binds laminin. Thus, the 156K DAG is a new laminin-binding glycoprotein which may provide a linkage between the sarcolemma and extracellular matrix. These results support the hypothesis that the dramatic reduction in the 156K DAG in Duchenne muscular dystrophy leads to a loss of a linkage between the sarcolemma and extra-cellular matrix and that this may render muscle fibres more susceptible to necrosis.

Primary structure of dystrophin-associated glycoproteins linking dystrophin to the extracellular matrix

Two distinct classes of carbohydrate-recognition domains in animal lectins.

Biology of the Syndecans: A Family of Transmembrane Heparan Sulfate Proteoglycans

Cell-Surface Glycosaminoglycans

Previous studies have shown that sulphated proteoglycans are integral components of basement membranes. We have used mouse parietal yolk sac cells as a model system for our studies. These cells produce several basement membrane components, including a heparan sulphate proteoglycan and a chondroitin sulphate proteoglycan. The structure of the heparan sulphate proteoglycan has been described previously. The chondroitin sulphate proteoglycan has an Mr of 200 000-300 000 and contains 10-20 chondroitin sulphate chains (Mr = 14 000-16 000), attached to a core protein that on polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis appears as a doublet (with Mr = 34 000 and 27 000). Further structural analysis suggests that the majority of the polysaccharide chains are clustered around one segment of the core protein. The polysaccharide chains carry sulphate residues predominantly attached to C-4 of the galactosamine unit. More than 60% of the uronic acid residues are of the glucuronic configuration, the rest being iduronic acid. The parietal yolk sac cells secrete about equal amounts of the two proteoglycans into the culture medium, whereas heparan sulphate proteoglycan is the predominant proteoglycan found in the extracellular matrix of these cells. This proteoglycan appears to be anchored in the matrix by interactions involving the core protein rather than the polysaccharide chains.

Julie Robinson

Papers

Cell-Surface Glycosaminoglycans

Proteoglycans in basement membranes.

Heparan Sulfate: On the Structure and Function of the Cell Associated Proteoglycans