The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Characterizing hydrophobicity of interfaces by using cavity formation, solute binding, and water correlations
Open accessAbstract
Hydrophobicity is often characterized macroscopically by the droplet contact angle. Molecular signatures of hydrophobicity have, however, remained elusive. Successful theories predict a drying transition leading to a vapor-like region near large hard-sphere solutes and interfaces. Adding attractions wets the interface with local density increasing with attractions. Here we present extensive molecular simulation studies of hydration of realistic surfaces with a wide range of chemistries from hydrophobic (−CF 3 , −CH 3 ) to hydrophilic (−OH, −CONH 2 ). We show that the water density near weakly attractive hydrophobic surfaces (e.g., −CF 3 ) can be bulk-like or larger, and provides a poor quantification of surface hydrophobicity. In contrast, the probability of cavity formation or the free energy of binding of hydrophobic solutes to interfaces correlates quantitatively with the macroscopic wetting properties and serves as an excellent signature of hydrophobicity. Specifically, the probability of cavity formation is enhanced in the vicinity of hydrophobic surfaces, and water–water correlations correspondingly display characteristics similar to those near a vapor–liquid interface. Hydrophilic surfaces suppress cavity formation and reduce the water–water correlation length. Our results suggest a potentially robust approach for characterizing hydrophobicity of more complex and heterogeneous surfaces of proteins and biomolecules, and other nanoscopic objects.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Thermal Conductance of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Interfaces
Ge, Z., Cahill, D. G., & Braun, P. V. (2006) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.186101 · Cited by 455
Dynamics of n-alkanes: Comparison to Rouse model
Mondello, M., Grest, G. S., Webb, E. B., & Peczak, P. (1998) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.476619 · Cited by 118
Cited by
Molecular origins of fluorocarbon hydrophobicity
Dalvi, V. H., & Rossky, P. J. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0915169107 · Cited by 421
Molecular Dynamics Studies of Interfacial Water at the Alumina Surface
Argyris, D., Ho, T., Cole, D. R., & Striolo, A. (2011) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry C · doi:10.1021/jp109244c · Cited by 167
Giovambattista, N., Rossky, P. J., & Debenedetti, P. G. (2012) · Annual Review of Physical Chemistry · doi:10.1146/annurev-physchem-032811-112007 · Cited by 149
Can Peptide Folding Simulations Provide Predictive Information for Aggregation Propensity?
Lin, E. I., & Shell, M. S. (2010) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry B · doi:10.1021/jp104114n · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Godawat, R., Jamadagni, S. N., & Garde, S.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2009-09-08
- Volume
- 106
- Issue
- 36
- Pages
- 15119-15124
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2131609458
- Cited by
- 357
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 14.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.