1994Protein ScienceOpen access

Protein denaturation with guanidine hydrochloride or urea provides a different estimate of stability depending on the contributions of electrostatic interactions

Oscar D. Monera, Cyril M. Kay, Robert S. Hodges

Open full text 362 citations

Abstract

The objective of this study was to address the question of whether or not urea and guanidine hydrochloride (GdnHCl) give the same estimates of the stability of a particular protein. We previously suspected that the estimates of protein stability from GdnHCl and urea denaturation data might differ depending on the electrostatic interactions stabilizing the proteins. Therefore, 4 coiled-coil analogs were designed, where the number of intrachain and interchain electrostatic attractions (A) were systematically changed to repulsions (R): 20A, 15A5R, 10A10R, and 20R. The GdnHCl denaturation data showed that the 4 coiled-coil analogs, which had electrostatic interactions ranging from 20 attractions to 20 repulsions, had very similar [GdnHCl]1/2 values (average of congruent to 3.5 M) and, as well, their delta delta Gu values were very close to 0 (0.2 kcal/mol). In contrast, urea denaturation showed that the [urea]1/2 values proportionately decreased with the stepwise change from 20 electrostatic attractions to 20 repulsions (20A, 7.4 M; 15A5R, 5.4 M; 10A10R, 3.2 M; and 20R, 1.4 M), and the delta delta Gu values correspondingly increased with the increasing differences in electrostatic interactions (20A-15A5R, 1.5 kcal/mol; 20A-10A10R, 3.7 kcal/mol; and 20A-20R, 5.8 kcal/mol). These results indicate that the ionic nature of GdnHCl masks electrostatic interactions in these model proteins, a phenomenon that was absent when the unchanged urea was used. Thus, GdnHCl and urea denaturations may give vastly different estimates of protein stability, depending on how important electrostatic interactions are to the protein.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The objective of this study was to address the question of whether or not urea and guanidine hydrochloride (GdnHCl) give the same estimates of the stability of a particular protein. We previously suspected that the estimates of protein stability from GdnHCl and urea denaturation data might differ depending on the electrostatic interactions stabilizing the proteins. Therefore, 4 coiled-coil analogs were designed, where the number of intrachain and interchain electrostatic attractions (A) were systematically changed to repulsions (R): 20A, 15A5R, 10A10R, and 20R. The GdnHCl denaturation data showed that the 4 coiled-coil analogs, which had electrostatic interactions ranging from 20 attractions to 20 repulsions, had very similar [GdnHCl]1/2 values (average of congruent to 3.5 M) and, as well, their delta delta Gu values were very close to 0 (0.2 kcal/mol). In contrast, urea denaturation showed that the [urea]1/2 values proportionately decreased with the stepwise change from 20 electrostatic attractions to 20 repulsions (20A, 7.4 M; 15A5R, 5.4 M; 10A10R, 3.2 M; and 20R, 1.4 M), and the delta delta Gu values correspondingly increased with the increasing differences in electrostatic interactions (20A-15A5R, 1.5 kcal/mol; 20A-10A10R, 3.7 kcal/mol; and 20A-20R, 5.8 kcal/mol). These results indicate that the ionic nature of GdnHCl masks electrostatic interactions in these model proteins, a phenomenon that was absent when the unchanged urea was used. Thus, GdnHCl and urea denaturations may give vastly different estimates of protein stability, depending on how important electrostatic interactions are to the protein.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 362 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The objective of this study was to address the question of whether or not urea and guanidine hydrochloride (GdnHCl) give the same estimates of the stability of a particular protein. We previously suspected that the estimates of protein stability from GdnHCl and urea denaturation data might differ depending on the electrostatic interactions stabilizing the proteins. Therefore, 4 coiled-coil analogs were designed, where the number of intrachain and interchain electrostatic attractions (A) were systematically changed to repulsions (R): 20A, 15A5R, 10A10R, and 20R. The GdnHCl denaturation data showed that the 4 coiled-coil analogs, which had electrostatic interactions ranging from 20 attractions to 20 repulsions, had very similar [GdnHCl]1/2 values (average of congruent to 3.5 M) and, as well, their delta delta Gu values were very close to 0 (0.2 kcal/mol). In contrast, urea denaturation showed that the [urea]1/2 values proportionately decreased with the stepwise change from 20 electrostatic attractions to 20 repulsions (20A, 7.4 M; 15A5R, 5.4 M; 10A10R, 3.2 M; and 20R, 1.4 M), and the delta delta Gu values correspondingly increased with the increasing differences in electrostatic interactions (20A-15A5R, 1.5 kcal/mol; 20A-10A10R, 3.7 kcal/mol; and 20A-20R, 5.8 kcal/mol). These results indicate that the ionic nature of GdnHCl masks electrostatic interactions in these model proteins, a phenomenon that was absent when the unchanged urea was used. Thus, GdnHCl and urea denaturations may give vastly different estimates of protein stability, depending on how important electrostatic interactions are to the protein.

Key concepts: Guanidine, Urea, Denaturation (fissile materials), Chemistry, Hydrochloride, Electrostatics, Crystallography, Protein stability

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Protein denaturation with guanidine hydrochloride or urea provides a different estimate of stability depending on the contributions of electrostatic interactions — Research Paper | ScholarLens