{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01440329218106996, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0054869684499314125, 'mean_word_length': 5.182203389830509, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Limited validity of group additivity for the folding energetics of the peptide group

The principle of group additivity is a standard feature of analyses of the energetics of protein folding, but it is known that it may not always be valid for the polar peptide group. The neighboring residue effect shows that group additivity is not strictly valid for a heteropeptide. We show here that group additivity fails seriously for peptide groups close to either peptide end, even for a homopeptide that has blocked end groups with no formal charges involved. The failure of group additivity is caused by the electrostatic character of the solvation of peptide polar groups and is illustrated with values of the electrostatic solvation free energy (ESF) calculated by DelPhi. Solvation free energies and enthalpies are known experimentally for monoamides and are often used to model the solvation of peptide groups, but ESF results show that monoamide values are very different from those of peptide groups. A main cause of the difference is that peptide solvation depends on the dipole–dipole interactions made between adjacent peptide groups, which vary with peptide conformation. Ligands that interact with the peptide backbone by an electrostatic mechanism could show a similar peptide end effect, and hydrogen exchange results from the literature confirm that exchange rates are position‐dependent close to peptide ends. Proteins 2006. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.