Quantifying why urea is a protein denaturant, whereas glycine betaine is a protein stabilizer

To explain the large, opposite effects of urea and glycine betaine (GB) on stability of folded proteins and protein complexes, we quantify and interpret preferential interactions of urea with 45 model compounds displaying protein functional groups and compare with a previous analysis of GB. This information is needed to use urea as a probe of coupled folding in protein processes and to tune molecular dynamics force fields. Preferential interactions between urea and model compounds relative to their interactions with water are determined by osmometry or solubility and dissected using a unique coarse-grained analysis to obtain interaction potentials quantifying the interaction of urea with each significant type of protein surface (aliphatic, aromatic hydrocarbon (C); polar and charged N and O). Microscopic local-bulk partition coefficients Kp for the accumulation or exclusion of urea in the water of hydration of these surfaces relative to bulk water are obtained. Kp values reveal that urea accumulates moderately at amide O and weakly at aliphatic C, whereas GB is excluded from both. These results provide both thermodynamic and molecular explanations for the opposite effects of urea and glycine betaine on protein stability, as well as deductions about strengths of amide NH—amide O and amide NH—amide N hydrogen bonds relative to hydrogen bonds to water. Interestingly, urea, like GB, is moderately accumulated at aromatic C surface. Urea m-values for protein folding and other protein processes are quantitatively interpreted and predicted using these urea interaction potentials or Kp values.