1: %\documentclass[prb,preprint,groupedaddress]{revtex4}

2: %\documentclass[aps,preprint,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

3: \documentclass[prb,twocolumn,groupedaddress]{revtex4}

4: %\documentclass[aps,twocolumn,superscriptaddress,s howpacs]{revtex4}

5: %\documentclass[twocolumn,prb,groupedaddress,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,floatfix]{revtex4}

6: \usepackage{amsmath}

7: \usepackage{amssymb}

8: \usepackage{amsfonts}

9: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}

10: \usepackage[]{caption}

11: \usepackage[]{epsfig}

12: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}

13: \voffset 2cm 

14: \newcommand {\Tp}{{\rm T}_+}

15: \newcommand {\Tm}{{\rm T}_-}

16: \newcommand {\Tn}{{\rm T}_0}

17: 

18: \newcommand {\Cn}{{\rm C}_0}

19: \newcommand {\Cp}{{\rm C}_+}

20: \newcommand {\Cm}{{\rm C}_-}

21: 

22: \newcommand {\Sn}{{\rm S}_0}

23: \newcommand {\Sp}{{\rm S}_+}

24: \newcommand {\Sm}{{\rm S}_-}

25:  

26: 

27: \begin{document}

28: 

29: \title{Competition of hydrophobic and Coulombic interactions between nano-sized solutes}

30: 

31: \author{J. Dzubiella}

32: \email[e-mail address:] {jd319@cam.ac.uk}

33: \affiliation{University Chemical Laboratory,

34: Lensfield Road,

35: Cambridge CB2 1EW,

36: United Kingdom}

37: \author{J.-P. Hansen}

38: \affiliation{University Chemical Laboratory,

39: Lensfield Road,

40: Cambridge CB2 1EW,

41: United Kingdom}

42: \date{\today}

43: 

44: \begin{abstract}

45: The solvation of charged, nanometer-sized spherical solutes in water,

46: and the effective, solvent-induced force between two such solutes are

47: investigated by constant temperature and pressure Molecular Dynamics

48: simulations of model solutes carrying various charge patterns. The

49: results for neutral solutes agree well with earlier findings, and with

50: predictions of simple macroscopic considerations: substantial

51: hydrophobic attraction may be traced back to strong depletion

52: (``drying'') of the solvent between the solutes. This hydrophobic

53: attraction is strongly reduced when the solutes are uniformly charged,

54: and the total force becomes repulsive at sufficiently high charge;

55: there is a significant asymmetry between anionic and cationic solute

56: pairs, the latter experiencing a lesser hydrophobic attraction. The

57: situation becomes more complex when the solutes carry discrete (rather

58: than uniform) charge patterns. Due to antagonistic effects of the

59: resulting hydrophilic and hydrophobic ``patches'' on the solvent

60: molecules, water is once more significantly depleted around the

61: solutes, and the effective interaction reverts to being mainly

62: attractive, despite the direct electrostatic repulsion between

63: solutes. Examination of a highly coarse-grained configurational

64: probability density shows that the relative orientation of the two

65: solutes is very different in explicit solvent, compared to the

66: prediction of the crude implicit solvent representation.  The present

67: study strongly suggests that a realistic modeling of the charge

68: distribution on the surface of globular proteins, as well as the

69: molecular treatment of water are essential prerequisites for any

70: reliable study of protein aggregation.

71: \end{abstract}

72: 

73: %\pacs{82.70.Uv,87.16.Ac,61.20Ja,68.08.Bc}

74: 

75: \maketitle

76: \section{Introduction}

77: It is a well-known fact of physical chemistry that solvophobic solutes

78: of similar sizes and shapes tend to attract each other in an

79: incompatible solvent. Classic examples are the effective attraction

80: between monomers of polymer coils in poor solvent, which leads to

81: collapse below the $\Theta$-temperature,\cite{rubinstein} or the

82: attraction between hydrophobic surfaces in

83: water.\cite{chandler_review} The effective attraction ultimately leads

84: to phase separation of the solvent and solute as the concentration of

85: the latter increases. The solvent-averaged effective interaction (or

86: potential of mean force) is related to the variation of free energy

87: upon bringing the two solutes from infinite to a finite separation in

88: the solvent. The change in free energy has an entropic

89: component, associated with the reorganization of the solvent molecules

90: around the two solutes, and an energetic contribution

91: which accounts for the deficit in attractive interactions between

92: solvent molecules close to the solutes. There is some analogy between

93: solvophobic attraction and the well-known depletion interaction

94: between colloidal particles induced by a depletant like non-adsorbing

95: polymers.\cite{likos:physrep} In the latter case the depletion

96: attraction can be essentially understood in terms of excluded volume,

97: and is hence of entropic origin, while hydrophobic interactions have a

98: large energetic contribution, associated with the

99: formation or break up of hydrogen bonds.

100: 

101: It has been recognized that the size of the solute plays an important

102: role in understanding its solvation energy, and effective

103: solute-solute attraction.\cite{chandler_review} For solutes of a

104: characteristic size larger than a few molecular diameters (typically

105: larger than 1nm), a mechanism first envisioned by Stilinger

106: \cite{stilinger} is that of solvent dewetting (``drying''), i.e. the

107: solvent molecules tend to move away from the surface of a large

108: solute, and form a liquid-gas like interface parallel to the solute

109: interface.\cite{chandler_review, hummer:prl} The overlap of the drying

110: zones associated with two large solutes as their surfaces come

111: together may then give rise to an effective attraction,\cite{lum:jpc}

112: very much like the depletion mechanism between-colloidal

113: particles. The mechanism holds, a priori, for any solvent, provided

114: that it is in a thermodynamic state close to liquid-vapor

115: coexistence.\cite{huang:jpc} The drying mechanism and resulting

116: attraction between two plate-like solutes was confirmed by Molecular

117: Dynamics (MD) simulation of Wallquist and Berne.\cite{wallquist:jpc}

118: Similar simulations were carried out for two large spherical solutes

119: in a Lennard-Jones solvent, and attractive solvation force profiles

120: were determined.\cite{kinoshita,shinto,qin}

121: 

122: However most nano-scale biomolecular solutes, like proteins, carry

123: electric charges, which make them, at least partly, hydrophilic. The

124: main objective of the present paper is to investigate the influence of

125: solute-solute and solute-solvent electrostatic interactions on the

126: effective, solvent-induced potential of mean force between two

127: solutes. In order to make contact with earlier work on neutral

128: hard-sphere solutes, we restrict the present investigation to

129: spherical solutes of identical radii $R\lesssim 1$nm, but carrying

130: various surface charge patterns. The two main questions which will be

131: addressed are: a) how does the competition between hydrophobicity and

132: electrostatics affect the total effective force between anionic and

133: cationic solutes; b) is the total force sensitive to details of the

134: charge patterns carried by the solutes? In particular are there

135: significant differences between results obtained with continuous and

136: discrete charge patterns of the solutes?  Such differences were

137: recently highlighted by a calculation of the second virial coefficient

138: in an implicit solvent model of globular proteins, which does not, of

139: course, allow for hydrophobic attraction.\cite{elshad:epl:2002} 

140: 

141: We have attempted to answer these questions by a series of constant

142: pressure MD simulations of two spherical solutes of varying radii (up

143: to $R=1.3$nm) immersed in water modeled by the SPC/E intermolecular

144: potential,\cite{berendsen:jpc} taken under normal conditions, i.e. close to

145: liquid-vapor coexistence. The paper is structured as follows. The

146: models and simulation procedures are detailed in Sec. \ref{sec:model}. The

147: solvation of single charged solutes is examined in

148: Sec. \ref{sec:single}. The effective interaction between two solutes as

149: a function of the mutual distance is estimated from a simple

150: macroscopic theory in Sec. \ref{sec:force:theory}, where the method for

151: extracting the mean effective force from simulations is also

152: defined. The results from MD simulations for several charge patterns

153: are presented in Sec. \ref{sec:force:sim}, while concluding remarks are

154: made in Sec. \ref{sec:conclusion}.

155: 

156: Part of the present results were briefly reported elsewhere.\cite{dzubiella:jcp:2003}

157: 

158: \section{Models and methodology}

159: 

160: \label{sec:model}

161: 

162: \begin{figure}

163:   \begin{center}

164: \includegraphics[width=5.0cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig1.eps}

165:     \caption{Sketch of the SPC/E water model. The vector $\vec\omega$

166:     embodies the orientation of the molecule.}

167: \label{fig:spce} 

168: \end{center}

169: \end{figure}

170: 

171: 

172: The MD simulations were carried out on periodic samples containing

173: $N_{\rm w}$ water molecules and one or two solutes.  The SPC/E model

174: of a water molecule \cite{berendsen:jpc} is sketched in Fig.~1. Two

175: water molecules interact via a Lennard-Jones potential between the

176: oxygen (O) sites, and the bare Coulomb potentials between the 9 pairs

177: of sites. The Lennard-Jones parameters are

178: $\epsilon=0.6502$kJmol$^{-1}$ and $\sigma=3.169$\AA. The molecules are

179: assumed to be rigid (with OH bond lengths and HOH bond angle specified

180: in Fig.~1) and nonpolarizable.  The solutes are smooth spheres of

181: bare radius $R_{0}$, which interact with the O-site of the water

182: molecules by the purely repulsive potential

183: \begin{eqnarray}

184: V_{0}(r) = \phi (r-R_{0})^{-12},

185: \label{eq:solutepot}

186: \end{eqnarray}  where $r$ is the distance from the solute center to

187: the O-site, and the energy scale $\phi$ is chosen such that the O-atom

188: experiences a repulsive energy $k_{\rm B}T$ at a distance

189: $r-R_{0}=$1\AA~ from the solute surface. With this convention, the

190: effective radius of the solutes may be defined as $R=R_{0}+1$\AA.  The

191: purely repulsive interaction (\ref{eq:solutepot}) is chosen to mimic a

192: strongly hydrophobic interaction between the neutral solute and the

193: water molecules. The model involving spherical solutes with no charged

194: site will be referred to as $\Sn$.

195: 

196: Since the main objective of our work is to investigate the difference

197: in the effective, solvent induced interaction between the cases of

198: neutral and charged solutes, we have considered several models for the

199: latter (cf. Table 1). In the simplest model, a total charge $Q=qe$

200: (where $e$ is the proton charge) is assumed to be uniformly

201: distributed over the solute surface. According to Gauss' theorem, this

202: is equivalent to placing a single charged site $Q$ at the center of the

203: spherical solute. We consider both anionic ($q<0$) and cationic

204: ($q>0$) solutes and the corresponding models will be referred to as

205: $\Sm$ and $\Sp$. To ensure overall electroneutrality of the system,

206: the total charge carried by the solutes must be compensated either by

207: a uniform background of total opposite charge permeating the system,

208: or by explicitly including counterions. For the latter we choose

209: Cl$^-$ (cationic solutes) and Na$^+$ (anionic solutes) ions. Their

210: mutual interactions and coupling to water molecules involve the

211: standard Coulomb-interactions, and a Lennard-Jones part,

212: with $\epsilon$ and $\sigma$ parameters taken from

213: Spohr.\cite{spohr:1999} The short range interaction with the solutes

214: is again described by (\ref{eq:solutepot}).

215: 

216: 

217: 

218: \begin{table}

219: \begin{center}

220: %\includegraphics[width=4.0cm,angle=0.,clip]{figs/table.xfig.eps}

221: \begin{tabular}{c|c c c|c c c|c c c}

222:  & $\Sn$ & $\Sp$ & $\Sm$ & $\Tn$ & $\Tp$ & $\Tm$ & $\Cn$ & $\Cp$ & $\Cm$ \\

223: \hline

224: $N_c$           & 0   & 1  & 1  & 4 & 4 &  4 & 8  &  8 &  8 \\

225: $Q/e$           & 0   & q  & -q & 0 & 4 & -4 & 0  &  8 & -8 \\

226: $R_0/{\rm \AA}$ & $0-12$ & 10 & 10 &10 &10 & 10 & 10 & 10 & 10 \\

227: $R_c/{\rm \AA}$ & - & 0 & 0 &10 &10 & 10 & 10 & 10 & 10 \\

228: $R_{cc}/{\rm \AA}$ & - & 0 & 0 &16.33 &16.33 & 16.33 & 11.55 & 11.55 & 11.55 \\

229: \end{tabular}

230: \caption{Characteristics of the different models

231: ${\rm S}_{0\pm},{\rm T}_{0\pm},{\rm C}_{0\pm}$ used. $N_c$ is the number of charges

232: carried by the solute, while $Q$ is the net charge. $R_0$ is

233: the bare solute radius. By $R_c$ we denote the distance of the

234: charges to the center of the solute, and $R_{cc}$ quantifies the

235: nearest neighbor distance between the charges. In the charged

236: ${\rm S}$-models the charge is located in the center of the solutes, while

237: in the ${\rm T}$ and ${\rm C}$ models the charges are distributed tetrahedrally

238: and cubically on the sphere surface.  }

239: \label{tab2}

240: \end{center}

241: \end{table}

242: 

243: \begin{figure}

244:   \begin{center}

245: \includegraphics[width=7.0cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig2.eps}

246:     \caption{Solute with (a) tetrahedral (T models) and (b) cubic (C

247:     models) charge distribution. The charges are connected in this

248:     figure for a better visualization of the structure.}

249: \label{fig:proteins} 

250: \end{center}

251: \end{figure}

252: 

253: 

254: In order to investigate the sensitivity of the effective forces to

255: details of the solute charge patterns, we have also considered models

256: with discrete charge distributions involving $N_c$ point charges

257: placed on the surface of the solutes. In the tetrahedron model,

258: $N_c=4$ charges are tetrahedrally arranged at a distance $R_0$ from

259: the center of the solutes, as illustrated in

260: Fig.~\ref{fig:proteins}(a); we consider both the cases where all 4

261: charges are of the same sign ($q=\pm 4$, referred to as models $\Tp$

262: and $\Tm$), and the neutral situation, where two charges are positive

263: and two are negative (model $\Tn$). We have also considered cubic

264: charge distributions, as sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:proteins}(b),

265: where $N_c=8$. In models $\Cp$ and $\Cm$ all 8 charges are positive

266: ($q=8$) or negative ($q=-8$), whereas in model $\Cn$, four vertices

267: carry a charge $+e$, while the other four carry opposite charges in

268: an alternating arrangement such that the three nearest neighbors of a

269: negative charge are positive and vice versa. A similar model of

270: globular proteins was considered by Allahyarov {\it et

271: al.},\cite{elshad:epl:2002} but in an implicit (continuous) solvent

272: representation. 

273: 

274: In order to avoid very close approaches of water

275: H-sites and the solute surface charges, the charged sites at the

276: vertices of the tetrahedron or cube, situated at a distance $R_0$ from

277: the solute center, are not simply point charges, but are modeled by

278: Cl$^-$ or Na$^+$ ions. The corresponding LJ potentials prevent these

279: sites and the water H atoms to come too close, and hence unreasonably

280: large electrostatic forces, which could lead to electrostatic

281: ``sticking'' of the water molecules to the solute surface.

282: The total interaction energy between one solute and the $N_{\rm w}$ water

283: molecules in a periodically repeated, cubic simulation cell is:

284: \begin{eqnarray}

285: V_{\rm sol} &  = & \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm w}} V_{\rm 0}(r_{i})+

286: \sum_{i=1}^{N_w}\sum_{\alpha=1}^{N_{\rm c}} V_{\rm

287:   LJ}(r_{i}^{\alpha 1})\nonumber \\

288: & + &\sum_{i=1}^{N_w}\sum_{\alpha=1}^{N_{\rm c}}\sum_{\beta =1}^3 {q_\alpha}{q_{\beta}}\phi_{\rm EW}(\vec r_{i}^{\alpha\beta}),

289: \label{eq:totalsolutepot}

290: \end{eqnarray}

291: where $r_i$ is the distance from the center of the solute to the

292: O-atom of the $i$th water molecule, and $r_{i}^{\alpha\beta}$ is the

293: distance from site $\alpha$ on the solute to site $\beta$ of the $i$th

294: water molecule ($\beta=1$ for the oxygen site). The first term on the

295: rhs of Eq.~(\ref{eq:totalsolutepot}) corresponds to the short ranged

296: repulsion (\ref{eq:solutepot}); the second term is the sum of

297: Lennard-Jones interactions between all $N_c$ sites of the solute and

298: the O-sites ($\beta=1$) of the $N_{\rm w}$ water molecules, which

299: depend on the corresponding site-site distance $r_i^{\alpha 1}$;

300: finally the last term accounts for the Coulombic interactions between

301: all $N_c$ solute sites and all 3 water sites; $\phi_{\rm EW}(\vec r)$

302: is the electrostatic interaction between two elementary charges,

303: properly summed over an infinite array of periodic images, using the

304: smooth-particle-mesh Ewald (SPME) method \cite{essmann:jcp} (see the

305: Appendix A for details). An expression similar to

306: Eq.~(\ref{eq:totalsolutepot}) holds for the total interaction between a

307: solute and its Cl$^-$ or Na$^+$ counterions.

308: 

309: The MD simulations were carried out with the DLPOLY2 \cite{dlpoly}

310: package, using the Verlet leapfrog algorithm,\cite{frenkelsmit} with

311: a timestep of 2fs. Simulations were carried out at constant pressure

312: ($P=1$atm) and constant temperature ($T=300$K), using appropriate

313: barostats and thermostats (see Appendix A). We emphasize the importance

314: of using constant pressure simulations of charged, aqueous systems:

315: electrostriction and drying mechanisms modify the density of water in

316: a finite, closed system in a significant way. In the present $NPT$

317: ensemble simulations, the overall density of water varied from

318: $\rho_0=0.033{\rm \AA}^{-3}$ to $0.035{\rm \AA}^{-3}$; in estimating

319: the average water density, the effective volume $4\pi R^3/3$ of the

320: solutes must be subtracted. The choice of the box length $L$ of the

321: periodically repeated simulation cell and the arrangement of solutes

322: inside the cell are discussed in the Appendix A. The cell contained up

323: to $N_{\rm w}=3000$ water molecules.

324: 

325: 

326: 

327: 

328: 

329: 

330: 

331: \section{Solvation of a single charged solute}

332: \label{sec:single}

333: 

334: Before embarking on the main subject of this paper, namely the

335: water-induced effective interaction between two protein-like solutes,

336: we first consider the solvation of a single, neutral or charged

337: spherical solute, a problem which has been abundantly addressed in the

338: literature, since the pioneering work of Born \cite{born} on solvation

339: free energies of ions, and of Reiss {\it et al.} on the

340: scaled-particle theory of cavity formation and hard sphere solutes.

341: \cite{reiss:jcp:1959}

342: 

343: 

344: \subsection{Water structure around a solute}

345: \label{sec:structure}

346: 

347: Consider first the structure of water around an isolated neutral

348: solute (model $\Sn$). Fig.~\ref{fig:profiles_neutral} shows MD results

349: for the oxygen and hydrogen radial distribution functions (RDF), or

350: density profiles, around a solute for various solute radii $R$. The

351: height of the main peak in the RDF of both O and H sites of the

352: water molecules is seen to first grow with increasing $R$, and this may

353: be rationalized in terms of enhanced packing of the molecules at the

354: surface of the solute. But for $R\gtrsim 5$\AA, the peak height is

355: seen to decrease monotonically, due to the unbalanced attraction

356: experienced by the water molecules near the surface from bulk

357: water. Very similar predictions of the depletion of water around large

358: spherical solutes (or cavities) have been reported earlier in the

359: literature.\cite{stilinger,huang:jpc,lum:jpc} The hydrogen and oxygen

360: peaks are located at nearly the same distance from the solute for any

361: given radius $R$, with a tendency of the hydrogen peak to be slightly

362: further out. This seems to indicate that there is no strong

363: orientation of the water molecules in the first solvation shell

364: towards or away from the solute surface.

365: 

366: \begin{figure}

367:   \begin{center}

368: \includegraphics[width=8cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig3.eps}

369:     \caption{Density profiles of water oxygen and hydrogen atoms

370:       (inset) around one isolated neutral solute ($\Sn$) plotted for

371:       different radii $R/{\rm \AA}=2,3,4,5,6,11$.}

372: \label{fig:profiles_neutral} 

373: \end{center}

374: \end{figure}

375: 

376: \begin{figure}

377:   \begin{center}

378: \includegraphics[width=8cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig4.eps}

379:     \caption{Orientation parameter $P(r)$ defined in

380:     Eq.~(\ref{eq:orient}) of the water particles around a solute with

381:     radius $R=11$\AA~ carrying no charge ($\Sn$, solid line), and

382:     charge $q=\pm 5$ (${\rm S}_\pm$, dashed lines), and $q=\pm 10$

383:     (${\rm S}_\pm$, dotted lines).}

384: \label{fig:orient} 

385: \end{center}

386: \end{figure}

387: 

388: \begin{figure}

389:   \begin{center}

390: \includegraphics[width=8cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig5.ps}

391:     \caption{Density profiles of water oxygen and hydrogen atoms

392:       (inset) around a (a) positively ($\Sp$) and (b) negatively

393:       ($\Sm$) charged solute with radius $R=11$\AA~ and central charge

394:       $q=\pm 5$ (dashed line), and $q=\pm 10$ (dotted line). We also

395:       plot the result for the $\Sn$ model (solid line) with the same

396:       radius.}

397: \label{fig:profiles_charged} 

398: \end{center}

399: \end{figure}

400: 

401: 

402: This observation may be quantified by considering the following

403: orientational order parameter:

404: \begin{eqnarray}

405: P(r)=\left<\frac{\vec\omega\cdot\vec r}{|\vec\omega||\vec r|}\right>_r,

406: \label{eq:orient}

407: \end{eqnarray}

408: where $\vec \omega$ is the water molecule orientation vector

409: (cf. Fig.~1), and the configurational average is taken for a fixed

410: distance $r$ from the solute center to the O-site of the water

411: molecules. MD results for a neutral solute of radius $R=11$\AA~ are

412: plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:orient}.  The curve $P(r)$ takes slightly

413: positive values ($P\simeq 0.05$) for water in the first solvation

414: shell ($r\simeq 12.5$\AA), indicating a weak tendency of the hydrogen

415: atoms to point away from the solute.

416: 

417: The effect of charging the solute is illustrated in

418: Fig.~\ref{fig:profiles_charged}(a) and (b), where the RDFs are plotted

419: for a fixed radius $R=11$\AA, and charges $q=0,\pm 5$, and $\pm 10$,

420: within the $\Sn$ and ${\rm S}_\pm$ models (neutral, or uniformly

421: charged solutes). For positive charges,

422: Fig.~\ref{fig:profiles_charged}(a), the height of the first peak in

423: both oxygen and hydrogen RDFs is seen to shift to shorter distances,

424: and to increase as $q$ increases, signaling an effective attraction of

425: the dipolar solvent molecules due to the radial electric field. The

426: trend is similar for negative charges, as regards the oxygen

427: RDF. However the initial first peak (at $r\simeq 12$\AA~ for $q=0$) in

428: the hydrogen RDF is seen to split into a prepeak around $r\simeq

429: 10$\AA~ and a broad feature close to the initial peak when

430: $q=-5$. This points to a reorientation of the water molecules in the

431: first hydration shell, with the positive hydrogen atom preferring

432: being closer to the surface of the anionic solute. Further decrease of

433: the negative charge $(q=-10)$ consolidates this structure, with two

434: hydrogen peaks growing in amplitude

435: (cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:profiles_charged}(b)). Interestingly, while the

436: hydrogen RDFs are very sensitive to the sign of the solute charge

437: ($\Sp$ versus $\Sm$), the amplitudes of the first peaks of the oxygen

438: RDFs are nearly independent of this sign, but the peak around the

439: positive solute appears to be broader, signaling a larger water

440: coordination number in the first solvation shell. The corresponding

441: orientational order parameter $P(r)$ is plotted in

442: Fig.~\ref{fig:orient}. The absolute value of $P(r)$ has maxima at

443: contact $r\simeq 11$\AA~ and approximately one water diameter further

444: away ($r\simeq 13.5$\AA), and increases with absolute charge,

445: irrespective of the sign of the charge carried by the solute. Closer

446: inspection of the curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:orient} reveals, however, a

447: significant asymmetry, if not in the overall shape of $P(r)$, at least

448: in the amplitudes, which are typically $20\%$ larger for the negative

449: solute.  Anion/cation hydration asymmetry had already been reported

450: for microscopic ions in aqueous solution.\cite{latimer:jcp:1939}

451: 

452: \begin{figure}

453:   \begin{center}

454: \includegraphics[width=8cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig6.ps}

455:     \caption{Oxygen density profiles around the tetrahedral (a)

456:     positive $\Tp$ and (b) negative $\Tm$ solutes. The curves are

457:     for a full angular average (long dashed lines), cone averages

458:     around the charges (circles), and averages of water excluded by

459:     these cones (squares), as explained in section

460:     \ref{sec:structure}.  We also plot the density profile around a

461:     neutral solute $\Sn$ (solid line) for

462:     comparison. The inset in (a) sketches a two dimensional projection

463:     of a tetrahedral solute. The cone averages are performed over the

464:     water molecules in the grey cones (opening angle

465:     $\Theta=30^\circ$) containing a surface charge (dark circle).}

466: 

467: \label{fig:profiles_proteins} 

468: \end{center}

469: \end{figure}

470: 

471: \begin{figure}

472:   \begin{center}

473: \includegraphics[width=8cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig7.eps}

474:     \caption{Orientation profiles $P(r)$ around the tetrahedral

475:     positive $\Tp$ (circles) and negative $\Tm$ (no symbols)

476:     solutes. Cone averages around charges (solid lines) are compared to

477:     averages of water molecules excluded by those cones (long dashed

478:     lines).}

479: \label{fig:orient_protein} 

480: \end{center}

481: \end{figure}

482: 

483: 

484: We now turn to the structure of water around a solute with an

485: inhomogeneous charge distribution, restricting the discussion to the

486: tetrahedral $\Tp$ and $\Tm$ models. In order to characterize the

487: anisotropy of the problem, it is desirable to distinguish between

488: water molecules close to the four surface charges, and the remaining

489: water surrounding the solute. We achieve this by averaging over water

490: molecules whose centers fall either inside or outside well-defined

491: cones whose axes coincide with the radii joining the solute center and

492: the surface charges and whose vertices coincide with the solute

493: center. A sketch of the two-dimensional projection of one of the sides

494: of the tetrahedron and its associated cones is shown in the inset to

495: Fig.~\ref{fig:profiles_proteins}(a). Averages are taken over cones of

496: opening angle $\Theta=30^\circ$, high enough to accommodate the first

497: two solvation shells around a surface charge. The results for the

498: oxygen density profiles for water molecules inside or outside the

499: cones are shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:profiles_proteins}(a) and (b) for

500: the $\Tp$ and $\Tm$ models, respectively. The water molecules inside

501: the cones exhibit a typical solvation shell structure with a large

502: first peak, and a much lower second peak, which is hardly visible in

503: the $\Tp$ case. Outside the four cones, water appears to be highly

504: depleted compared to its distribution around a neutral $\Sn$ solute,

505: up to a radial distance $r\simeq 13$\AA. Thus the 25$\%$ of the solute

506: surface area inside the cones act as hydrophilic ``patches'' while the

507: remaining 75\% are hydrophobic. Interestingly, if an angular average

508: is taken over the total solute area, the mean density of water close

509: to the surface ($\lesssim 13$\AA) of a $\Tp$ or $\Tm$ solute is

510: significantly smaller than the corresponding density around a neutral

511: $\Sn$ solute ! Integration of the water density profile up to

512: $r=13$\AA~ yields coordination numbers (numbers of water molecules) of

513: 133 for $\Sn$, 92 for $\Tp$, and 95 for $\Tm$, showing a 30$\%$

514: depletion of water around the T-solutes compared to $\Sn$. The

515: orientational order parameter (3) for the $\Tp$ and $\Tm$ models are

516: plotted versus $r$ in Fig~\ref{fig:orient_protein}. The orientational

517: order of water molecules inside the cones is seen to be similar to

518: that around homogeneously charged solutes $\Sp$ or $\Sm$

519: (cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:orient}). In the depleted volumes outside the cones

520: the water molecules shows little orientational order; if anything they

521: tend to orient in the direction opposite to the mean orientation

522: inside the cones.

523: 

524: Qualitatively similar observations hold for the distribution of water

525: molecules around solutes with cubic charge distribution (models $\Cp$

526: or $\Cm$), but obviously the volumes depleted of water are now

527: smaller, since the ``hydrophobic patches'' have shrunk now to only

528: half of the solute surface area. The MD simulations for the solutes

529: with non-vanishing net charge were carried out with explicit

530: counterions. Test runs where these counterions were replaced by a

531: uniform neutralizing background showed no differences within the

532: statistical uncertainties.

533: 

534: 

535: 

536: \subsection{Solvation free energy}

537: \label{sec:solvation}

538: 

539: The solvation free energy is equal to the reversible work required for

540: transferring a solute from vacuum into a solvent. For neutral solutes

541: in water, the solvation free energy is generally

542: positive,\cite{hummer:jpc:1996,lum:jpc} and for atomic-size solutes,

543: it stems mainly from the entropy cost of the restructuring water

544: molecules around the solute. For larger spherical solutes, a cross

545: over in the variation of the solvation free energy with radius occurs

546: typically around 1 nm.\cite{lum:jpc} The classic Born model

547: \cite{born} provides the simplest approach to the solvation free

548: energy of charged spherical solutes. The solvent is treated as a

549: dielectric continuum of permittivity $\epsilon$ and the hydration free

550: energy increases quadratically with solute charge and is proportional

551: to the inverse of the Born radius $R_{\rm B}$, according to

552: \begin{eqnarray}

553:   \Delta\mu_{\rm B}=-\frac{q^2e^2}{8\pi\epsilon_0 R_{\rm B}}(1-1/\epsilon).

554: \label{eq:born}

555: \end{eqnarray}

556: Note that the solvation free energy is a difference in chemical

557: potential of the solute as it is moved from vacuum into the

558: solvent. Hydration free energies from the Born model agree well with

559: experimental values, once the unknown parameter $R_{\rm B}$ is

560: defined. The Born radius for an ion can deviate substantially from its

561: Pauling radius (a measure of the size of an

562: ion).\cite{latimer:jcp:1939}

563: 

564: We have obtained solvation free energies for our model solutes by

565: thermodynamic integration, using the general formula

566: \begin{eqnarray}

567: \Delta\mu_{\rm sim}=\int_{\lambda_{0}}^{\lambda_{1}} d\lambda \left<\frac{\partial V_{\rm sol}}{\partial \lambda}\right>_{\lambda},

568: \label{eq:ti}

569: \end{eqnarray}

570: where the coupling parameter $\lambda$ gradually ``switches on'' the

571: interaction (2) between the solute and the solvent from an initial

572: state $\lambda=\lambda_0$ (say a neutral point solute) to a final

573: state $\lambda=\lambda_1$ corresponding to the complete

574: solute/solvent system.  The brackets $<..>_\lambda$ denote a

575: statistical average over all solute-solvent configurations for a

576: solute-solvent coupling characterized by $V_{\rm sol}(\lambda)$. The

577: index sim in $\Delta\mu_{\rm sim}$ indicates that the estimate of the

578: solvation free energy is based on MD simulations of a finite sample;

579: finite size corrections will be added as explained later.

580: 

581: \begin{figure}

582:   \begin{center}

583: \includegraphics[width=8cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig8.eps}

584:     \caption{Solvation free energy $\Delta\mu_0$ of a neutral

585:     spherical solute $\Sn$ in water. The inset shows $\Delta\mu_0$ divided

586:     by the sphere surface showing an asymptotic approach for large $R$

587:     to the liquid-vapor surface tension of water (dashed line),

588:     $\gamma\approx 72$mJ/${\rm m^2}$.}

589: \label{fig:freee_neutral} 

590: \end{center}

591: \end{figure}

592: 

593: In practice, we proceded in two steps. In a first stage, we computed

594: the solvation free energy $\Delta\mu_0$ of a neutral spherical solute

595: (model $\Sn$), as a function of its radius $R$. The second step is to

596: charge up the initially neutral solute to the final charge pattern. In

597: step one, the coupling parameter $\lambda$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:ti}) is simply the

598: radius itself, and $\Delta\mu_0$ is consequently the work required to

599: blow up the solute against the normal force exerted by the solvent,

600: integrated over the particle surface; in this case the force is just

601: the radial derivative of the first term on the rhs of eq

602: (\ref{eq:totalsolutepot}). This is implemented, in practice, by

603: starting from $\lambda_0=R=0$, and increasing the radius by steps of

604: $\Delta\lambda=\Delta R=1$\AA, up to $\lambda_1=14$\AA~ (the largest

605: neutral solute considered in the present work). The averaged radial

606: force, as obtained from the MD simulations for various $R$, is

607: interpolated with a cubic spline and integrated to yield

608: $\Delta\mu_0$. The resulting solvation free energy is plotted in

609: Fig.~\ref{fig:freee_neutral}, and is seen to increase monotonically

610: with $R$. The solvation free energy per unit area, $\Delta\mu_0/4\pi

611: R^2$, is plotted in the inset to Fig.~\ref{fig:freee_neutral}, and is

612: seen to approach asymptotically a constant value for radii $R\gtrsim

613: 10$\AA; the latter is close to the liquid-vapor surface tension of

614: water, $\gamma=72$mJ/m$^2$. This behavior is close to that reported by

615: Lum {\it et al.}\cite{lum:jpc} for hard sphere cavities in water. The

616: ``softer'' solute-solvent pair potential (1) used in the present work

617: does not modify the solvation process significantly, compared to the

618: case of hard sphere solutes.

619: 

620: 

621: \begin{figure}

622:   \begin{center}

623: \includegraphics[width=8cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig9.eps}

624:     \caption{Excess solvation free energy $\Delta\mu_\pm$ of charging

625:     a spherical solute of radius $R=11$\AA~ in water homogeneously to

626:     a charge $q$ (solid line) and $-q$ (long dashed line). The symbols

627:     denote the solvation free energies of charging the ${\rm

628:     T}_{0\pm}$ and ${\rm C}_{0\pm}$ models in water. The symbols at

629:     $q=4$ are for the tetrahedron, at $q=8$ for the cube. The overall

630:     charge of the ${\rm T}_{0\pm}$ and ${\rm C}_{0\pm}$ solutes is

631:     zero (circles), positive (diamonds), and negative (squares).}

632: \label{fig:freee_charged} 

633: \end{center}

634: \end{figure}

635: 

636: 

637: In the second stage, to go from the neutral to the charged solute, the

638: charges of the $N_c$ sites on the solute are gradually turned on,

639: i.e. $q_\alpha(\lambda)=\lambda q_\alpha$ $(1\leq \alpha \leq N_c)$,

640: where $\lambda$ is varied from 0 to 1. The quantity to be averaged in

641: Eq.~(\ref{eq:ti}) is now the total electrostatic energy of the solute in

642: the field of the water molecules and their periodic images; the

643: statistical average is to be taken over all Boltzmann-weighted water

644: configurations when the electrostatic solute/solvent coupling is

645: multiplied by $\lambda$. Since for any $\lambda>0$ the system carries

646: a net charge, a compensating uniform background charge must be

647: included in evaluating the Coulombic part of

648: Eq.~(\ref{eq:totalsolutepot}) by Ewald summation. If the self

649: interaction energy of the solute with its own images and the

650: neutralizing background is properly included, the resulting free

651: energies are virtually independent of the size $L$ of the simulation

652: box,\cite{hummer:jpc:1996, hummer:jcp:1997} see the Appendix

653: B. Results for $\Delta\mu_{\pm}$ corresponding to a uniformly charged

654: solute with radius $R=11$\AA~ are plotted in

655: Fig.~\ref{fig:freee_charged} as a function of $q$, for anionic and

656: cationic solutes. Note that this is the excess free energy for

657: charging an initially neutral solute of $R=11$\AA, previously inserted

658: into the solvent, to a charge $q$. In order to obtain the total

659: solvation free energy, the contribution $\Delta\mu_0$ corresponding to

660: the insertion of the neutral solute in water ($\approx 0.6$MJ/mol for

661: $R=11$\AA) must be added to $\Delta\mu_\pm$.  The curves are

662: essentially quadratic on the scale shown, in agreement with Born

663: theory. Least squares fits of the data to the Born formula (4) yield

664: $R_{\rm B}^+=9.8$\AA~ and $R_{\rm B}^-=8.6$\AA~, both smaller than the

665: effective solute radius $R=11$\AA.  The solvation free energy of

666: cationic solutes is slightly positive for $0<q\lesssim 1$. Such a

667: behavior has already been reported for small cationic solutes (e.g

668: Na$^+$)\cite{hummer:jpc:1996,lynden-bell} and may be understood from

669: the competition between the free energy cost of the rearrangement of

670: water around the solute, and the electrostatic energy gain of the

671: dipolar solvent in the electric field of the solute. The latter

672: contribution appears to dominate already for small $|q|$ in the case

673: of anionic solutes, for which $\Delta\mu_-$ is always negative. Over

674: the whole range of absolute charge $|q|$, $\Delta\mu_-$ is

675: systematically lower than $\Delta\mu_+$, pointing to a preferential

676: solvation of anionic solutes, again in agreement with earlier findings

677: for other charged solute models.\cite{hummer:jpc:1996,lynden-bell,garde:2004}

678: In Sec. \ref{sec:structure} we learned that the restructuring of water

679: is stronger around an $\Sm$ solute than around its $\Sp$ counterpart,

680: so that one would expect a higher cost in entropy. Apparently the

681: closer approach of the hydrogen atoms to the negative solute decreases

682: the electrostatic contribution to the free energy more than the

683: positive entropic cost, resulting in an overall lower solvation free

684: energy.

685: 

686: Solvation free energies for solutes carrying discrete tetrahedral or

687: cubic charge distributions, corresponding to models $\Tp$, $\Tm$, and

688: $\Tn$, and $\Cp$, $\Cm$, and $\Cn$ are also shown in

689: Fig.~\ref{fig:freee_charged}. The contribution to the solvation free

690: energy from the steric LJ-part of the surface charge interaction with

691: the water molecules is insignificant and was neglected in the calculation

692: of $\Delta\mu_\pm$. As in the case of the uniformly charged

693: solutes, the negative solutes are preferentially solvated compared to

694: their positive counterparts. The solvation energies of the overall

695: neutral solutes $\Tn$ and $\Cn$ lie well above those of the charged

696: solutes (${\rm T}_\pm$ or ${\rm C}_\pm$). In particular $|\Delta\mu|$ of the

697: overall neutral solute with a cubic charge pattern $\Cn$ is roughly

698: three times smaller than the corresponding $|\Delta\mu_\pm|$ of the

699: globally charged solutes $\Cp$ and $\Cm$. This may be a consequence of

700: the considerable reorganization of water around the solutes with

701: surface charges of alternating sign, resulting in a substantial cost

702: in free energy. Finally, the solvation free energies of solutes with

703: discrete charge patterns (${\rm T}_\pm$ or ${\rm C}_\pm$) are seen to lie

704: 10-20$\%$ below the solvation free energies of their uniformly charged

705: counterparts ($S_\pm$ with $q=\pm 4$ and $\pm8$).

706: 

707:  

708: \section{Effective interaction between two solutes}

709: \label{sec:force:theory}

710: We now turn to the main objective of this paper, namely the

711: determination of the effective, solvent-mediated interaction between

712: two nanometer-sized neutral or charged solutes in water. In subsection

713: IV A and IV B we derive this interaction from simple macroscopic

714: considerations, while the MD methodology is presented in IV C.

715: \subsection{Phenomenological theory for charged plates}

716: A simple macroscopic argument, similar to Kelvin's theory of capillary

717: condensation predicts that water near liquid/vapor coexistence will

718: undergo ``drying'' when confined between two hydrophilic plates, below

719: a critical distance $D_c$ separating these plates.\cite{lum:jpc} We

720: extended the argument to the case of charged

721: plates,\cite{dzubiella:jcp:2003} showing that $D_c$ is strongly

722: reduced by the electrostatic energy associated with the surface charge

723: carried by the plates. The macroscopic argument is further refined

724: hereafter.  Consider two parallel plate-like solutes of area $A_1$,

725: separated by a distance $D$ and carrying opposite surface charges

726: $\pm\sigma$, immersed in a polar solvent of dielectric permittivity

727: $\epsilon$.  Neglecting edge effects (an approximation valid as long

728: as $D\ll A_1^{1/2}$, the electric field between the plates is

729: $E_{0}/\epsilon$ with $E_{0}=\sigma/\epsilon_{0}$. We require the

730: difference in the grand potential between the situations where the

731: liquid solvent ($l$) or its vapor ($g$) fill the volume $A_1 D$

732: between the two plates:

733: \begin{eqnarray}

734: \Omega_{\alpha}  =  -P_{\alpha} A_1D  + \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{0}\frac{E^{2}_{0}}{\epsilon_{\alpha}}A_1D 

735:  +  2\gamma_{w\alpha}A_1 +\gamma_{l\alpha}A_2,

736: \label{eq:plates1}

737: \end{eqnarray}

738: where $P_{\alpha}$ is the pressure of phase $\alpha=l,g$ and

739: $\gamma_{w\alpha}$ the surface tension between phase $\alpha$ and the

740: plate (``wall"). $A_2$ is the area of the liquid-vapor interface

741: limited by the edges of the two opposite plates, which is created when

742: the volume between the plates is filled by vapor. $\gamma_{l\alpha}$

743: is the liquid-vapor surface tension when $\alpha=g$, and vanishes of

744: course when $\alpha=l$. The last term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:plates1}) may be

745: neglected for infinitely large plates.\cite{dzubiella:jcp:2003}

746: Consider a state close to phase coexistence at temperature $T$, and

747: let $\delta\mu=\mu-\mu_{\rm sat}$ be the positive deviation of the

748: chemical potential from its saturation value. Expanding the

749: $P_{\alpha}$ to linear order around their common value at saturation,

750: one arrives at the following expression for the difference in grand

751: potentials:

752: \begin{eqnarray}

753: \Omega_{g}-\Omega_{l}&=&(\rho_{ l}-\rho_{

754:   g})\delta\mu A_1D+\frac{\epsilon_{0}}{2}E^{2}_{0}(\frac{1}{\epsilon_{

755:   g}}-\frac{1}{\epsilon_{l}})A_1D\nonumber\\&+& 2(\gamma_{ w g}-\gamma_{w

756:   l})A_1-\gamma_{lg}A_2.

757: \end{eqnarray}

758: In water $\epsilon_{l}\equiv\epsilon\gg\epsilon_{g}\simeq 1$,

759: $\rho_{g}\ll\rho_{l}$ (except near critical conditions) and

760: $\gamma_{wl}-\gamma_{wg}=\gamma_{lg}\equiv\gamma$ for a purely

761: hydrophobic surface. Moreover $A_2=UD$, where $U$ is the

762: circumference of one plate. Hence:

763: \begin{eqnarray}

764: \Delta\Omega =\left(\rho_{l}\delta\mu+\frac{\epsilon_{0}}{2}E^{2}_{0}\right)A_1D- 2\gamma A_1 +\gamma UD.

765: \label{eq:deltaomega}

766: \end{eqnarray}

767: $\Delta\Omega=\Omega_{g}-\Omega_{l}$ is the reversible work bringing

768: the two plates from infinite separation (when the volume between them

769: is filled by liquid) to a distance $D$, at which ``drying'' has already

770: occurred. At contact, $\Delta\Omega(D=0)=-2\gamma A_1$, and

771: $\Delta\Omega$ increases linearly with $D$. The range of the purely

772: attractive potential is defined by the distance $D_c$ at which

773: $\Delta\Omega=0$; for $D>D_c$, the liquid is the preferred phase between the plates; for $D<D_c$, ``drying'' occurs.

774: From Eq.~(\ref{eq:deltaomega}) we obtain

775: \begin{eqnarray} 

776: D_{\rm c}\simeq\frac{2\gamma}{\rho_{l}\delta\mu+\frac{\epsilon_{0}}{2}E^{2}_{0}+\gamma U/A_1}.

777: \label{eq:Dc}

778: \end{eqnarray}

779: Near the liquid-vapor transition of water $\delta\mu\ll k_{B}T$, and

780: may be neglected compared to the surface tension term in the

781: denominator. Consider circular plates of radius $R$; then $U/A_1=2R$,

782: and if they are uncharged ($E_0=0$), $D_c=R$, which is in agreemeent

783: with previous calculations of the mean force between plate-like

784: solutes in water \cite{wallquist:jpc} and in a LJ-fluid.\cite{bolhuis}

785: In the case of high

786: surface charges ($\sigma\lesssim e/{\rm nm}^{2}$), $E_0$ can be as

787: large as $10^{10}$V/m, and the corresponding electrostatic term in the

788: denominator becomes comparable to the surface term for solute sizes of

789: a few nm. This leads to a strong reduction of $D_{\rm c}$ compared to

790: the case of neutral solutes. This reduction of $D_{\rm c}$ hints at a

791: considerable weakening of the hydrophobic interaction between two

792: solutes when the latter are charged. This trend will be confirmed by

793: the MD results in Sec.~V. Note however that the simple macroscopic

794: model ignores molecular details, and that its prediction does not, a

795: priori, apply to solutes carrying discrete charge patterns

796: (i.e. ``hydrophilic patches'') for which a more microscopic

797: description is required.

798: 

799: 

800: \subsection{Phenomenological theory for spherical solutes}

801: \label{sec:theory}

802: The previous model can be extended to the case of neutral or charged

803: spherical solutes with radius $R_0$ as follows (see

804: Fig.~\ref{fig:sketch}). 

805: When ``drying'' occurs, the simulation data

806: (cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:contour_neutral} (b) or (c)) suggest that a

807: cylindrically symmetric domain bounded by the two spherical solute

808: surfaces ($S_1$) and the curved liquid-vapor meniscus ($S_2$) is

809: filled with vapor. The surface $S_2$ is assumed to touch the solute

810: spheres tangentially (contact angle $\pi$) and to have a radius of

811: curvature $R'$. For a given surface-to-surface distance $s$ of the two

812: solutes, the volume $V$ of the ``dry'' domain and the areas $S_1$ and

813: $S_2$ are conveniently expressed in terms of the single parameter $x$,

814: as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:sketch}. If $x=0$, the vapor domain

815: shrinks to zero, i.e. the space between the solutes is filled with

816: liquid, while for $x=R_0$ the vapor occupies a cylindrical volume

817: $V=\pi R_0^2[(2R_0+s)-4R_0/3]$. For intermediate values of $x$, the

818: areas $S_1$ and $S_2$ are given by

819: \begin{eqnarray}

820:  S_1  (x)  &=&  4\pi R_0x \nonumber \\

821:  S_2  (x)  &=&  4\pi R'\left[h' \arcsin\left(\frac{x+s/2}{R'}\right)-(x+s/2)\right] \nonumber \\

822:  R' &  =  & R_0(x+s/2)/(R_0-x) \nonumber \\ h'  & = & \frac{R_0+R'}{R_0}\sqrt{2R_0x-x^2}.

823: \end{eqnarray}

824: \begin{figure}

825:   \begin{center}

826: \includegraphics[width=8cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig10.eps}

827:     \caption{Sketch of two spherical solutes of radius $R_0$ at a

828:     surface-to-surface distance $s$. The white volume $V$ between the

829:     solutes approximates the region depleted of water. $S_1$ and $S_2$ are

830:     the surrounding solute-vapor and liquid-vapor surface areas,

831:     resp. $R'$ is the radius of the curved surface $S_2$.}

832: \label{fig:sketch} 

833: \end{center}

834: \end{figure}

835: \begin{figure}

836:   \begin{center}

837: \includegraphics[width=8cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig11.eps}

838:     \caption{Free energy $\Delta\Omega$ of dried states between

839:     neutral spherical solutes with radius $R_0=10$ according to

840:     Eq.~(\ref{eq:domega}). The volume of the empty state is described

841:     by the parameter $x$ for a given geometry, see

842:     Fig.~\ref{fig:sketch}. The most bottom curve is for a

843:     surface-to-surface distance $s=0$, then $s$ is incremented by

844:     0.5\AA~ steps.}

845: \label{fig:omegax} 

846: \end{center}

847: \end{figure}

848: The difference in grand potential between the ``dry'' and filled

849: states is then given (in absence of the electric charges) by the

850: following generalization of Eq.~(\ref{eq:deltaomega}):

851: \begin{eqnarray}

852: \Delta\Omega=\rho_l \delta\mu V(x)-\gamma_{\rm s} S_1(x)+\gamma S_2(x),

853: \label{eq:domega}

854: \end{eqnarray}

855: where $\gamma_s$ is the surface tension of the solute-liquid interface

856: and $\gamma$ the liquid-vapor surface tension.  The first term in

857: Eq.~(\ref{eq:domega}) is the bulk free energy for creating a cavity of

858: volume $V(x)$ in water, and favors the filled state. Again, near

859: liquid-vapor equilibrium $\delta\mu\ll k_{B}T$, and the volume term

860: may be safely neglected. The second and third terms in

861: Eq.~(\ref{eq:domega}) are the surface free energies for decreasing the

862: solute-liquid and increasing the liquid-vapor interface,

863: respectively. For simplicity we first assume

864: $\gamma=\gamma_s$\cite{huang:jpc}; effects arising from

865: $\gamma\neq\gamma_s$ will be discussed later. In the following we use

866: the liquid-vapor surface tension of water $\gamma=0.174

867: k_BT{\rm\AA}^{-2}$. $\Delta\Omega(x)$ is plotted versus the geometric

868: control parameter $x$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:omegax} for a solute of radius

869: $R_0=1$nm, and various surface-to-surface distances $s$. At contact

870: ($s=0$), $\Delta\Omega(x)$ exhibits a single negative minimum at the

871: non-zero value $x=x_{\rm min}(s=0)$ signaling that the ``dry'' state

872: with volume $V(x_{\rm min})$ is stable. As $s$ increases, the global

873: minimum is raised to less negative energy values and occurs at smaller

874: values of $x$, while a second local minimum appears at $x=0$,

875: corresponding to a metastable, filled state. At the critical value

876: $s_c\simeq 3.2$\AA, the global minimum jumps from the non zero value

877: of $x$ to $x=x_{\rm min}(s_c)=0$. For $s>s_c$, the filled state is

878: favored. The effective interaction $w(s)$ between two solutes is equal

879: to the free energy difference in bringing them from infinite

880: separation to a surface-to-surface distance $s$, and is given by

881: Eq.~(\ref{eq:domega}), i.e. $w(s) =\Delta\Omega(s;x_{\rm

882: min}(s))$. The energy at the global minimum is negative for all

883: $s<s_c$ ($x_{\rm min}>0$), so that the interaction is always

884: attractive. $s_c$ is the range of the interaction; at $s=s_c$, $w

885: (s)=\Delta\Omega=0$, and $\gamma_{\rm s} S_1=\gamma S_2$. 

886: 

887: The effective potentials and forces between two solutes of different

888: radii $R_0=5,8,10,12$\AA~ from Eq.~(\ref{eq:domega}) are plotted

889: in Fig.~\ref{fig:forces_theory}. A detailed numerical investigation

890: shows that, assuming $\gamma_s=\gamma$, the range of the potential

891: (and of the resulting effective force) is $s_c\simeq 0.32R_0$, scaling

892: linearly with solute radius, independently of $\gamma$. The contact

893: value of the potential is $w(0) \simeq -1.19\gamma R_0^2$, scaling

894: with the solute surface area.  The contact value of the force is $

895: F(0)\simeq -4.28\gamma R_0$. The force increases roughly linearly with

896: a slope independent of $R_0$ (cf. Fig.~12). The results are accurately

897: represented by

898: \begin{eqnarray}

899:  F(s) =\gamma

900: \begin{cases}

901: -a_1 R_0 + a_2s & {\text {for}} \,\,s \leq s_c=a_3R_0 ; \cr

902:    0 & {\rm otherwise}. \cr

903: \end{cases}

904: \label{eq:force}

905: \end{eqnarray}

906: and

907: \begin{eqnarray}

908:  w(s) =\gamma

909: \begin{cases}

910: -a_0 R_0^2 +a_1R_0s-\frac{a_2}{2}s^2 & {\text {for}} \,\,s \leq s_c ; \cr

911:    0 & {\rm otherwise}. \cr

912: \end{cases}

913: \label{eq:pot}

914: \end{eqnarray}

915: with $a_0=1.19$, $a_1=4.28$, $a_3=0.32$, and $s_c=a_3 R_0$.

916: If the force is assumed to be linear in $s$, $a_2$ is fixed by

917: the other constants according to $a_2=2(a_1a_3-a_0)/a_3^2\simeq 3.51$.

918: The linear scaling of the contact value of the force with solute

919: radius $R$ may be rationalized by a simple consideration of the

920: potential of mean force for plates ($R=\infty$) at contact,

921: $w(0)=-2\gamma$ and an application of the Derjaguin approximation,

922: valid for weakly curved substrates (i.e. large $R$); \cite{louis:jcp}

923: this leads to the estimate $F(s=0)=-2\pi R\gamma$, which indeed

924: predicts linear scaling.

925: 

926: \begin{figure}

927:   \begin{center}

928: \includegraphics[width=8cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig12.eps}

929:     \caption{Results from the phenomenological theory in section \ref{sec:theory}

930:       for the mean force, $F^{*}=\beta F$\AA, between two neutral

931:       ($q=0$) spheres in SPC/E water. Results are plotted for solute

932:       radii $R_0=5$\AA~, $R_0=8$\AA~, $R_0=10$\AA~, and

933:       $R_0=12$\AA~. The inset shows the integrated force (potential of

934:       mean force). The depth and range of the force and potential

935:       increases with $R$.}

936: \label{fig:forces_theory} 

937: \end{center}

938: \end{figure}

939: 

940: Near a ``realistic'' solute, water will have a surface tension

941: $\gamma_s\neq\gamma$, due to Van-der-Waals and electrostatic

942: interactions, as well as the influence of curvature for small

943: solutes. One may expect $\gamma_s < \gamma$, and lowering $\gamma_s$

944: will lead to less hydrophobic attraction.  A possible

945: approach to include the electrostatic field effects due to a net

946: charge on the solutes is to absorb these effects into the

947: solute-liquid surface tension.  A naive procedure is to approximate

948: $\gamma_s$ by the solvation free energy per unit area of a charged

949: solute. In section \ref{sec:solvation} it was shown that the Born

950: expression (4) fits the MD data for uniformly charged solutes quite

951: well, once the Born radius $R_B$ has been adjusted.  Thus one may

952: write for large solutes $R\gtrsim1$nm (neglecting $1/\epsilon$ compared to 1):

953: \begin{eqnarray}

954: \gamma_s=\gamma-\frac{q^2e^2}{32\pi^2\epsilon_0 R_B^3}, 

955: \label{eq:gamma_charged}

956: \end{eqnarray}

957: which indeed lowers the hydrophobic attraction when charge is added to

958: the solutes. No hydrophobic attraction occurs when $\gamma_s=0$, so

959: that the corresponding critical charge $q_c$ satisfies:

960: \begin{eqnarray}

961: {q_c^2}={32\pi^2 e^2\epsilon_0 \gamma R_B^3}

962: \label{eq:gamma_charged}

963: \end{eqnarray}

964: For $R_B \approx 1$nm, one obtains $|q_c|\approx 3$, which in view of the

965: sensitivity to $R_B$, yields at least  the right order of magnitude, since 

966: the MD data discussed later suggest $|q_c|\approx 8$. 

967: 

968: 

969: \subsection{Forces and potentials from simulation}

970: In the MD simulations, the mean force between two solutes was

971: calculated by placing them at fixed positions ${{\vec R}_1}$ and

972: ${{\vec R}_2}$ along the body diagonal of the simulation cell, and

973: averaging over water configurations generated during the runs which

974: extended typically over 1-3 ns. The averaging was performed as long

975: the statistical error was larger than $\Delta \beta F{\rm \AA}=0.5$,

976: approximately twice the symbol size in the figures showing the

977: forces. Separate MD simulations have to be carried out for each

978: center-to-center distance ${{\vec R}_{12}}={{\vec R}_1}-{{\vec R}_2}$,

979: i.e. for a series of surface-to-surface distances $s=R_{12}-2R_0$.

980: The force acting on solute 1 is estimated from the statistical average

981: of the gradient of the total interaction energy $V_{\rm sol}$ in

982: Eq.~(\ref{eq:totalsolutepot}):

983: \begin{equation}

984: {\vec F}_1(R_{12}) = \left\langle -\nabla V_{\rm sol}(R_{12})\right\rangle_{{\vec R}_{12}},

985: \label{f1.eq}

986: \end{equation}

987: where the constrained statistical average is taken over solvent

988: configurations, when the two solutes are held fixed at a separation

989: $\vec R_{12}$. Note that while the solute translational degrees are

990: frozen, they rotate freely under the action of the torques exerted by

991: the solvent and the other solute. In other words, the calculated

992: effective forces are orientationally averaged. By symmetry, $\vec

993: F_2(\vec R_{12})=-\vec F_1(\vec R_{12})$. The magnitude of the

994: effective force is obtained by projecting onto the vector $\vec

995: R_{12}$:

996: \begin{equation}

997: F(R_{12}) = \frac{{\vec R}_1 - {\vec R}_2}{R_{12}}\cdot

998:                       {\vec F}_1(R_{12}).

999: \label{fdep.eq}

1000: \end{equation}

1001: The resulting effective solute-solute potential follows from:

1002: \begin{equation}

1003: w(R_{12})=\int_{R_{12}}^\infty F(R)dR.

1004: \label{eq:int}

1005: \end{equation}

1006: In simulations where counterions are present, the sum of all pair

1007: interactions between the latter and the solute must be added to

1008: $V_{\rm sol}$ in Eq.~(\ref{f1.eq}), i.e. the mean force acting on the

1009: solute is the statistical average of the sum of the instantaneous

1010: forces exerted by all water molecules and ions on the solute, in the

1011: presence of a fixed second solute. 

1012: 

1013: 

1014: 

1015: 

1016: \section{Molecular dynamics results for profiles and forces}

1017: \label{sec:force:sim}

1018: \subsection{Neutral solutes}

1019: 

1020: We first consider the case of uncharged solutes. The water density

1021: profiles are illustrated in Figs.~\ref{fig:contour_neutral}(a)-(e) for

1022: the case of solutes of radius $R=11$\AA~ and different

1023: surface-to-surface distances along the $z$-axis joining the

1024: centers. We plot density contours coded by variable shades of

1025: gray. The profiles are calculated using a cylindrical average around the

1026: symmetry axis (center-to-center line).  The profiles show a

1027: considerable depletion (dark region) of the solvent between the

1028: spheres, reminiscent of the observations of Wallquist and Berne for

1029: flatter solutes. \cite{wallquist:jpc} As the surface-to-surface

1030: distance $s$ is increased for fixed radius $R$, the water molecules

1031: penetrate into the region between opposite solute surfaces, as

1032: signaled by a decreasing radius of the dark  region between

1033: the spheres. Eventually at a distance between $s\approx5$\AA~ and

1034: 6\AA~ (Figs.~\ref{fig:contour_neutral}(c) and (d)) the region between

1035: the solutes fills with liquid.  When $s\gtrsim 7$\AA, the solvent

1036: layers around an isolated solute are hardly disturbed by the presence

1037: of the other solute.

1038: 

1039: Examples for the mean force for several radii 6\AA~$\leq R \leq

1040: 13$\AA~ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:forces_sim}. The largest radii are

1041: of the order of the size of small globular proteins or of oil-in-water

1042: micelles.  The average force obviously goes to zero at large distances

1043: $s$ and for symmetry reasons, it is directed along the

1044: center-to-center axis. As expected from a depletion mechanism, the

1045: force is attractive and its contact values and range increase with

1046: $R$. We observe for all radii that the range of the force is similar

1047: to the distance at which the drying between the solutes vanishes.  The

1048: potentials of mean force $w(s)$ may be calculated for each $R$

1049: according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:int}). The resulting potentials are shown in the inset

1050: to Fig.~\ref{fig:forces_sim}. They closely resemble results obtained

1051: for polymer-induced depletion potentials between spherical colloids,

1052: albeit on different length and energy scales.\cite{louis:jcp} The

1053: force at contact, $F(s=0)$, and the range of the force $s_c$ scales

1054: roughly with $R$ in agreement with the macroscopic model prediction

1055: (14). From the MD data we extract a rough scaling $F(s=0)\approx

1056: 3.9\gamma R$ and range $s_c\approx 0.4 R$, reasonably close to the

1057: theoretical estimates from Sec.~IV.B. Overall there is a striking

1058: qualitative and even semi-quantitative agreement between the MD forces

1059: in Fig.~14 and the predictions of tbe macroscopic model in Fig. 12.

1060: 

1061: \begin{figure}

1062:   \begin{center}

1063: \includegraphics[width=6cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig13.eps}

1064: \caption{Contour density profiles of water around two neutral

1065: $\Sn$ solutes with radius $R=11$\AA~ for surface-to-surface

1066: distances (a) $s=2$\AA, (b) $s=4$\AA, (c) $s=5$\AA, (d) $s=6$\AA,

1067: and (e) $s=7$\AA. The dark and light areas correspond to low and high

1068: densities of water molecules.}

1069: \label{fig:contour_neutral}

1070: \end{center}

1071: \end{figure}

1072: 

1073: \begin{figure}

1074:   \begin{center}

1075: \includegraphics[width=8cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig14.eps}

1076:     \caption{Simulation results (symbols) of the mean force,

1077:       $F^{*}=\beta F$\AA, between

1078:       two neutral $\Sn$ solutes in SPC/E water. The

1079:       lines are guides to the eye. Results are plotted for solute

1080:       radii  $R=6$\AA~ (squares), $R=9$\AA~

1081:       (diamonds), $R=11$\AA~ (triangles pointing up), and $R=13$\AA~ (triangles

1082:       pointing left). The inset shows the integrated force (potential of mean

1083:       force) in obvious order.}  

1084: \label{fig:forces_sim} 

1085: \end{center}

1086: \end{figure}

1087: 

1088: \subsection{Uniformly charged solutes}

1089: 

1090: 

1091: \begin{figure}

1092:   \begin{center}

1093: \includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{fig15.ps}

1094:     \caption{Density profiles of the water molecules around (a) two

1095:       neutral $\Sn$ solutes of radius $R=11$\AA~  and two oppositely

1096:       charged ${\rm S}_\pm$ solutes of radius $R=11$\AA~ carrying a

1097:       charge $\pm qe$ with (b) $|q|=2$, (c) $|q|=5$, and (d)

1098:       $|q|=10$. The surface-to-surface distance in all cases is

1099:       $s=4$\AA. In the contour plots  dark regions indicate low density

1100:       regions while high densities are plotted bright. The panels

1101:       below the contour plots show the water density $\rho$ scaled

1102:       with water bulk density $\rho_{0}$ in a cylinder of radius

1103:       $5$\AA, coaxial with the center-to-center line of the

1104:       solutes.}    

1105: \label{fig:contour_charged}

1106: \end{center}

1107: \end{figure}

1108: 

1109: \begin{figure}

1110:   \begin{center}

1111: \includegraphics[width=8cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig16.eps}

1112:     \caption{Mean force, $F^{*}=\beta F$\AA, as a function of

1113:       surface-to-surface distance $s$ for neutral $\Sn$ solutes

1114:       (circles) and oppositely charged ${\rm S}_\pm$ solutes of

1115:       $R=11$\AA~ with different central charges $\pm qe$:

1116:       $q=2$ (squares), $q=5$ (diamonds), $q=10$ (triangles up). The

1117:       dashed line represents the electrostatic force between 2

1118:       periodically repeated solutes with opposite charges $q=\pm$ 10

1119:       in a continuous solvent with permittivity $\epsilon=80$.  The

1120:       inset shows the resulting potentials of mean force; the contact

1121:       values $w(s=0)$ increase with $q$.}

1122: \label{fig:forces_opp_charged}

1123: \end{center}

1124: \end{figure}

1125: 

1126: 

1127: \begin{figure}

1128:   \begin{center}

1129: \includegraphics[width=8cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig17.eps}

1130:     \caption{Mean force, $F^{*}=\beta F$\AA, as a function of

1131:       surface-to-surface distance $s$ for equally charged ${\rm

1132:       S}_\pm$ solutes of radius $R=11$\AA~ and $q=-4$ (diamonds),

1133:       $q=4$ (circles), $q=-8$ (squares), and $q=8$ (triangles). The

1134:       inset shows the according potential of mean force.}

1135: \label{fig:forces_like_charged}

1136: \end{center}

1137: \end{figure}

1138: 

1139: 

1140: We now turn to charged solutes. Consider first oppositely charged

1141: solutes. The water density profiles are illustrated in

1142: Figs.~\ref{fig:contour_charged}(a)-(d) for the case of solutes of

1143: radius $R=11$\AA~, a surface-to-surface distance $s=4$\AA~, and

1144: various charges $q$. The upper part of each frame shows a density

1145: contour plot coded by variable shades of gray. The lower part shows

1146: density profiles along the center-to-center axis $z$, averaged over a

1147: coaxial cylindrical volume of radius $5$\AA. In Frame (a) we plot the

1148: density distribution for the neutral case $Q=0$ for comparison with

1149: the charged systems.  Frames (b)-(d) in Fig.~\ref{fig:contour_charged}

1150: show water density profiles in the vicinity of two spheres carrying

1151: opposite electric charges $\pm qe$ at their center (opposite charges

1152: ensure overall charge neutrality without any need for counterions). As

1153: $q$ increases from zero (frame (a)), water is seen to penetrate

1154: between the two solutes, the central peak around $z=0$ in the density

1155: profiles increases rapidly and its amplitude reaches roughly the bulk

1156: density of water when $q=10$. Note that this central peak is

1157: asymmetrically split, indicating the presence of two hydration layers

1158: which differ somewhat depending on their association with the anionic

1159: or cationic solute. This difference is also evident in the contact

1160: values of the outside surfaces of the solutes, and is a consequence of

1161: the different arrangements of the water dipoles around the solutes

1162: induced by the local electric fields. The asymmetry of the profiles

1163: can be rationalized by inspecting the water structure around isolated

1164: solutes, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:profiles_charged}(a) and (b) and

1165: Fig.~\ref{fig:orient} in Sec. \ref{sec:structure}. The hydration shell

1166: is more sharply defined around the cationic than around the anionic

1167: solute. The water dipoles tend to point radially away from the cation,

1168: while the opposite configuration is more favorable around anions.

1169: 

1170: The resulting mean forces between solutes are plotted for $q=0,2,5$

1171: and 10, as functions of the surface-to-surface distance $s$ in

1172: Fig.~\ref{fig:forces_opp_charged} together with corresponding

1173: potentials of mean force. The mean force includes the direct Coulomb

1174: interaction between the two solutes (with proper account for the

1175: periodic images), which is in fact an order of magnitude larger than

1176: the total mean force. At large distances hydrophobic interactions

1177: become negligible and the force should tend to

1178: $-q^{2}e^{2}/(4\pi\epsilon_{0}\epsilon r^{2})$, where $r=2R+s$ and

1179: $\epsilon$ is the dielectric permittivity of bulk water; the

1180: corresponding curve for $q=\pm 10$ is also shown in

1181: Fig.~\ref{fig:forces_opp_charged}.

1182: 

1183: The most striking result illustrated in

1184: Fig.~\ref{fig:forces_opp_charged} is the near independence of the

1185: force at contact, $s=0$, with respect to solute charge. From the

1186: density profiles in Fig.~\ref{fig:contour_charged} the hydrophobic

1187: attraction is expected to be reduced but this reduction is almost

1188: exactly compensated by the Coulomb attraction between solutes in the

1189: presence of the solvent. As $q$ increases, the initial slope of the

1190: effective force increases. The potential of mean force (shown in the

1191: inset to Fig.~\ref{fig:forces_opp_charged}) exhibits a contact value

1192: which increases with $q$, indicating that the reduction of hydrophobic

1193: attractive free energy clearly outweighs the increase in bare Coulomb attraction between the

1194: latter. Simulations calculating the forces at and near contact for

1195: $q=7$ and $q=15$, not shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:forces_opp_charged},

1196: confirm this trend. Note that the potential of mean force  for

1197: $q=10$ shows more long range attraction compared to the smaller $q$

1198: data due to the increased electrostatic attraction. The

1199: eye-catching kink in the force for $q=$10, at a distance $s\approx

1200: 1$\AA~ is reproducible, and is probably related to the pronounced

1201: shell structure of water molecules around highly charged solutes,

1202: discussed in sec~\ref{sec:structure}. While for neutral (and weakly

1203: charged) solutes, the O and H density profiles show little structure,

1204: they are sharply peaked at a distance $s\approx 1$\AA~ of the O atoms

1205: from the solute surface. This would lead to a complete shared

1206: hydration layer, and consequently to a kink in the force versus

1207: distance curve, between 2 flat solutes separated by $s=2$\AA~. This

1208: critical separation is shifted to shorter distances due to the

1209: curvature of spherical solutes.

1210:  

1211: In view of this delicate balance between various interactions, we have

1212: also examined the case of equally charged solutes. In this case

1213: monovalent counterions (Na$^{+}$ or Cl$^{-}$) were included to ensure

1214: overall charge neutrality. The situation is summarized in

1215: Fig.~\ref{fig:forces_like_charged} for solutes of radius $R=11$\AA~

1216: and charge $q=\pm4$ and $q=\pm8$. Charges of 4 and 8 were chosen to

1217: allow a direct comparison with the results for the models ${\rm

1218: T}_\pm$ and ${\rm C}_\pm$ in the next section.  The water density

1219: profiles are symmetric with respect to $z=0$ for equally charged

1220: solutes, but differ substantially when going from a pair of anions to

1221: a pair of cations, as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:structure}. This

1222: difference is reflected in the effective forces and potentials shown

1223: in Fig.~\ref{fig:forces_like_charged}. The interaction between the

1224: anionic solutes is always more attractive. For $q=\pm4$ hydrophobic

1225: attraction overcomes the repulsion between like charges, while for

1226: $q\pm8$ the electrostatic contribution dominates and the force is

1227: mainly repulsive, apart from a small attractive kink at

1228: $s=2-3$\AA. The contact value of the repulsive forces is an order of

1229: magnitude higher than in a continuous solvent, originating obviously

1230: from the lack of water between the solutes and, hence a reduced

1231: dielectric screening. 

1232: 

1233: The reduction of the hydrophobic attraction between initially

1234: uncharged solutes, upon increasing the solute charge, may be qualitatively

1235: understood by the orienting action of the strong electric field

1236: between charged solutes on the water molecules, which disrupts the

1237: local hydrogen-bond structure and moves water locally away from

1238: conditions of liquid-vapor coexistence, so that ``drying'' no longer

1239: occurs.

1240: 

1241: 

1242: \subsection{Discrete charge patterns}

1243: \label{sec:inhom}

1244: The water density distribution around two tetrahedral solutes $\Tn$

1245: (i.e carrying no net charge) is plotted in Fig.~18(a)-(e) for

1246: increasing values of the surface-to-surface distance $s$.  As in the

1247: case of neutral solutes $\Sn$, water depletion between the solutes is

1248: observable up to a solute distance of $s\simeq5$\AA. The bright

1249: regions near the surfaces indicate high density water and stem from

1250: the solvation shells in the immediate vicinity of the surface

1251: charges. We note again that the density profiles were calculated by

1252: averaging the water density cylindrically around the symmetry axis and

1253: the solutes were free to rotate in the simulations. The difference in

1254: brightness at the solute surfaces shows that certain orientational

1255: configurations are favored over others. If the tetrahedra were

1256: rotating freely (without any mutual interactions), the brightness

1257: would be the same everywhere on the solute contour, as in the case of

1258: homogeneously charged solutes. It seems that the systems chooses those

1259: configurations where the hydrophobic parts of the solutes (i.e. areas

1260: between the hydrophilic surface charges) face each other. We have also

1261: performed simulations of the overall neutral tetrahedral solute

1262: replacing the SPC/E water by a continuous solvent with permittivity

1263: $\epsilon=80$. In the latter case and for short distances, $s\lesssim

1264: 5$\AA, configurations are favored in which opposite surface charges

1265: associated with the two solutes face each other, thus strongly

1266: lowering the electrostatic energy of the system. With explicit water

1267: this is apparently no longer the case, despite the expected reduction

1268: in dielectric screening close to the surfaces; the system tries to

1269: deplete water from the solute surfaces between the solutes. For

1270: distances larger than $s\simeq5$\AA~, where no visible drying

1271: occurs, the positions of the bright regions are more smeared out on

1272: average, indicating a higher rotational freedom of the solutes. A

1273: simple configurational order parameter will be defined and discussed

1274: later.  The water profiles for the tetrahedral solutes $\Tp$ show the

1275: same behavior, in particular a visible drying for $s\lesssim5$\AA. We

1276: have not performed simulations of a pair of the negative $\Tm$

1277: tetrahedra but expect similar behavior.

1278: 

1279: \begin{figure}

1280:   \begin{center}

1281: \includegraphics[width=6cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig18.eps}

1282:     \caption{Contour density profiles of water around two $\Tn$

1283: solutes for surface-to-surface distances (a) $s=0$\AA, (b) $s=2$\AA,

1284: (c) $s=4$\AA, (d) $s=6$\AA, and (e) $s=9$\AA.}

1285: \label{fig:contour_tetra}

1286: \end{center}

1287: \end{figure}

1288: 

1289: The water density profiles around a solute $\Cn$ carrying an overall

1290: neutral cubic charge distribution are plotted in

1291: Fig.~\ref{fig:contour_cube}(a)-(c).  No water depletion is visible at

1292: any distance. In (a) the black region between the solutes comes from

1293: the fact that the solute surfaces touch.  The positions of the high

1294: density regions of water corresponding to the first solvation shells

1295: of the surface charges are on average distributed homogeneously over

1296: the sphere surface, pointing to a high orientational freedom of the

1297: solutes. The density of water close to the solute surface (bright ring

1298: in Figs.~\ref{fig:contour_cube}(a)-(c)) is on average higher compared

1299: to the tetrahedra due to the larger surface charged density. The water

1300: density profiles for the positive cubic solute $\Cp$ show a different

1301: behavior, resembling the results for the tetrahedral solute, as shown

1302: in Fig.~\ref{fig:contour_pos_cube}.  For distances $s\lesssim 4$\AA~

1303: no bright region is found between the solutes, and hence water

1304: depletion is observed. Similar to the tetrahedral case the solutes

1305: stay mainly in orientational configurations in which the hydrophobic

1306: patches face each other.

1307: 

1308: \begin{figure}

1309:   \begin{center}

1310: %\includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig19.eps}

1311:     \caption{Contour density profiles of water around two $\Cn$

1312: solutes with cubic charge distribution for surface-to-surface

1313: distances (a) $s=0$\AA~, (b) $s=2$\AA~, and (c) $s=4$\AA~.}

1314: \label{fig:contour_cube}

1315: \end{center}

1316: \end{figure}

1317: 

1318: \begin{figure}

1319:   \begin{center}

1320: \includegraphics[width=7cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig20.eps}

1321:     \caption{Contour density profiles of water around two $\Cp$

1322: solutes for surface-to-surface distances (a) $s=0$\AA~, (b) $s=2$\AA~,

1323: and (c) $s=4$\AA~.}

1324: \label{fig:contour_pos_cube}

1325: \end{center}

1326: \end{figure}

1327: 

1328: 

1329: The effective force between the model solutes is plotted in

1330: Fig.~\ref{fig:forces_solutes}. We show the force between pairs of

1331: neutral and overall positive tetrahedra, $\Tn$ and $\Tp$ as well as

1332: between pairs of neutral and overall positive cubes, $\Cn$ and $\Cp$.

1333: Simulations with overall charged solutes were carried out with

1334: explicit counterions.  We have not performed simulations of a pair of

1335: overall negative tetrahedra and cubes. The force between pairs of

1336: overall neutral and charged tetrahedra is only slightly less

1337: attractive than between pairs of spherically symmetric neutral solutes

1338: (compare to Fig.~\ref{fig:forces_sim}). This is surprising as one

1339: expects a stronger influence of the high electric fields generated by

1340: the surface charges. We learned from the investigation of

1341: homogeneously charged solutes that an electric field can considerably

1342: lower the hydrophobic attraction. Apparently, a more anisotropic

1343: electric field distribution again favors hydrophobic

1344: attraction. Compare the force between pairs of positively charged

1345: tetrahedra and pairs of homogeneously charged solutes with the same

1346: overall charge $q=+4$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:forces_like_charged}): the

1347: attraction between the homogeneously charged solutes is less than half

1348: that between $\Tp$ solutes. As already discussed above, the strong

1349: attraction between two tetrahedra is accompanied by water depletion

1350: between them, as in the case of homogeneous neutral solutes.  The

1351: water density profile around an isolated tetrahedral solute ${\rm T}_\pm$,

1352: shown in Sec. \ref{sec:structure}, already illustrated strong

1353: depletion of water from the regions between the first solvation shells

1354: of the discrete surface charges. A possible explanation of the strong

1355: attraction between two tetrahedra is that this depletion is amplified

1356: when two hydrophobic patches of the solutes come close and face each

1357: other, and thus lowering the free energy.

1358: 

1359: 

1360: The effective force between two solutes with overall neutral cubic

1361: charge distribution shows qualitative differences compared to the

1362: tetrahedra. Cubes with zero overall charge still attract each other,

1363: but the interaction range is decreased.  Analysis of the

1364: configurations shows that for close cubic solutes ($s\approx 1-3$\AA)

1365: one positive and one negative charge belonging to different solutes

1366: are on average very close, interacting with reduced dielectric screening

1367: than in bulk water due to their mutual proximity. The attraction

1368: observed is therefore mainly due to the electrostatic contribution and

1369: not hydrophobic attraction as in the case of neutral tetrahedra. For

1370: the $\Cp$ solute the situation is again different. All charges repel,

1371: allowing the hydrophobic patches to face each other and water

1372: depletion is induced, as seen in the water profiles of

1373: Fig.~\ref{fig:contour_pos_cube}. Although equally charged, the cubic

1374: solutes still attract each other in striking contrast to the

1375: homogeneously charged solutes with $Q=8$ in explicit water

1376: (Fig.~\ref{fig:forces_like_charged}) and different to the case where

1377: water is replaced by a continuous solvent with $\epsilon=80$, also

1378: plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:forces_solutes}.

1379:   

1380: \begin{figure}

1381:   \begin{center}

1382: \includegraphics[width=8cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig21.eps}

1383:     \caption{Mean force between  $\Tp$ (diamonds), $\Tn$ (triangles),

1384:     $\Cp$ (squares), and $\Cn$ (circles) solutes. Also plotted

1385:     is the force between two periodically repeated $\Cp$ solutes 

1386:     in a continuous solvent with $\epsilon=80$ (solid line without symbols).}

1387: \label{fig:forces_solutes}

1388: \end{center}

1389: \end{figure}

1390: 

1391: 

1392: 

1393: \begin{figure}

1394:   \begin{center}

1395: \includegraphics[width=8cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig22.eps}

1396:     \caption{Sketch of two T solutes with radius $R_0$ and a 

1397:     surface-to-surface distance $s$. The dashed lines through the

1398:     solute centers delimit a slab of width $2R_0+s$. The numbers of

1399:     solute charges (small spheres) of each solute $N_1$ and $N_2$

1400:     inside the slab define the order parameter $N=N_1 \cdot N_2$,

1401:     described in section \ref{sec:inhom}.  $N=6=3\cdot 2$ in the

1402:     configuration shown. }

1403: \label{fig:slab}

1404: \end{center}

1405: \end{figure}

1406: 

1407: \begin{figure}

1408:   \begin{center}

1409: \includegraphics[width=8cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig23.eps}

1410:     \caption{Configurational probabilities $P(N)$ as defined in

1411:     Sec. \ref{sec:inhom} for two non-interacting tetrahedral solutes.}

1412: \label{fig:prob_free}

1413: \end{center}

1414: \end{figure}

1415: 

1416: In the following we investigate how the explicitly resolved water

1417: affects the average orientational configurations of two close

1418: tetrahedral solutes, when their centers are held at fixed

1419: positions. In a continuous solvent the probability of observing a

1420: certain configuration is purely determined by the electrostatic

1421: interactions between the surface charges.  Obviously, for close

1422: distances of the solutes, structural effects of explicit water are

1423: expected to be very significant. A simple orientational order parameter, which coarsely

1424: probes different orientational configurations of a pair of tetrahedral

1425: solutes can be defined as follows: we count the number of surface

1426: charges in the slab delimited in width by the centers of the two

1427: solutes, as sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:slab}. Let $N_1$ and $N_2$ be

1428: the numbers of charges in the slab belonging to the first and second

1429: solutes. The values $N_i$, $i$=1,2 for a tetrahedron with four charged

1430: vertices are obviously $N_i=1,2$ or 3 (it is not possible to have four

1431: charges on one half sphere of the tetrahedral solute). The order

1432: parameter is now defined as the product $N=N_1N_2$ and can take values

1433: 1,2,3,4,6,9, which characterizes 6 different mutual orientational

1434: configurations. For $N=1$, for instance, one charge of each solute is

1435: located in the slab, and the charges are both necessarily close to the

1436: symmetry axis; on the other hand, when $N=9$, 3 charges of each solute are

1437: within the slab and the bare triangular surfaces between the three charges are mainly

1438: facing each other. In Fig.~\ref{fig:slab} we sketch two tetrahedra

1439: in a configuration $N=3\cdot 2 = 6$.  The probability distribution

1440: $P(N)$ for two freely (without any interactions) rotating tetrahedra

1441: is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:prob_free}. $N=2=2\cdot 1=1\cdot 2$,

1442: $N=4=2\cdot 2$, and $N=6=2\cdot 3=3\cdot 2$ are the most likely

1443: configurations, with probabilities $P(2)\simeq0.21$, $P(4)=\simeq

1444: 0.4$, and $P(6)=0.28$.

1445: 

1446: In Fig.~\ref{fig:prob_eps80}(a)-(d) we plot the probability

1447: distribution $P(N)$ for interacting tetrahedra in a continuous solvent

1448: with permittivity $\epsilon=80$.  In Fig.~\ref{fig:prob_eps80}(a) and

1449: (b) we show the result for a pair of overall neutral $\Tn$ solutes at

1450: distances $s=3$\AA~ and $s=9$\AA~.  For the close distance the free

1451: rotator distribution is dramatically changed and the $N=1$ and $N=2$

1452: configurations are strongly favored. This is due to negative and

1453: positive charges from different solutes attracting each other at close

1454: distance. For the larger distance the electrostatic interactions are

1455: weaker and $P(N)$ strongly resembles the free rotator distribution

1456: again.  In Fig.~\ref{fig:prob_eps80}(c) and (d) we show the same

1457: distribution function, now for a pair of overall positive solutes at

1458: distances $s=3$\AA~ and $s=9$\AA~, resp. Here, at close distance the

1459: $N=1$ and $N=2$ configurations are suppressed due to the proximity of

1460: like charges, and the $N>3$ configurations are enhanced, since they

1461: allow the charges of one solute to be at larger mean distance from the

1462: like charges of the second solute. For large distances, (d), we again

1463: recover the free rotator distribution.

1464: 

1465: In Fig.~\ref{fig:prob_exp}(a)-(d) the continuous solvent is now

1466: replaced by explicit water molecules. For close solutes ($s=3$\AA) the

1467: difference with the continuous solvent is large: the probabilities of

1468: the $N=1$ and $N=2$ configurations are reduced both for the neutral

1469: (a) and overall charged tetrahedra (c). The $N=6$ and $N=9$

1470: configurations are greatly enhanced, indicating that on average the

1471: are hydrophobic surfaces face each other, as expected from the water profiles in Fig.~\ref{fig:contour_tetra}(b),(c). Remarkably,

1472: even for case (a) the explicit solvent system strongly favors water

1473: depletion rather than the proximity of two unlike charges, which would

1474: lower the electrostatic energy significantly. Increasing the distance to

1475: $s=9$\AA, the probabilities of the $N=6$ and $N=9$ configurations are

1476: lowered and the overall distributions, both for neutral and positive

1477: tetrahedra are more similar to the free rotator distribution.

1478: \begin{figure}

1479:   \begin{center}

1480: \includegraphics[width=8cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig24.eps}

1481:     \caption{Configurational probabilities $P(N)$ as defined in

1482:     Sec. \ref{sec:inhom} for two tetrahedral solutes in a continuous solvent

1483:     with $\epsilon=80$. (a) and (b) are for $\Tn$ solutes at

1484:     a surface-to-surface distance  $s=3$\AA~ and $s=9$\AA. (c)

1485:     and (d) are for $\Tp$ solutes at a distance

1486:     $s=3$\AA~ and $s=9$\AA, resp.}

1487: \label{fig:prob_eps80}

1488: \end{center}

1489: \end{figure}

1490: \begin{figure}

1491:   \begin{center}

1492: \includegraphics[width=8cm,angle=0.,clip]{fig25.eps}

1493:     \caption{Same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:prob_eps80}, but now with

1494:     explicit SPC/E water instead of a continuous solvent.}

1495: \label{fig:prob_exp}

1496: \end{center}

1497: \end{figure}

1498: \vspace{-1cm}

1499: \section{Conclusion}

1500: \label{sec:conclusion}

1501: We have used a simple model of neutral and charged, nanometer-sized

1502: spherical solutes, embedded in explicit aqueous solvent, to

1503: investigate the influence of charge patterns on the solvation of a

1504: single solute, and on the effective, solvent-induced interaction

1505: between two solutes. The charge patterns considered in this paper

1506: include uniform charge distributions (equivalent to a single charge at

1507: the center of the spherical solute), as well as tetrahedral or cubic

1508: charge distributions, involving 4 or 8 discrete positive or negative

1509: charges situated at the solute surface, adding up to an overall

1510: positive, zero or negative charge $Q$ (the $\Tp,\Tm,\Tn$ and

1511: $\Cp,\Cm,\Cn$ models).

1512:  

1513: Extensive constant pressure and constant temperature ($NPT$) Molecular

1514: Dynamics simulations were carried out under ``normal'' solvent

1515: conditions, i.e. close to liquid-vapor coexistence of water at room

1516: temperature. These simulations provide water density profiles around a

1517: single solute or a pair of solutes, which can be resolved into

1518: solute-oxygen and solute-hydrogen pair distribution functions, the

1519: distance resolved orientational order parameter $P(r)$, the solvation

1520: free energy as a function of solute radius and charge, as well as the

1521: effective force and pair potential between two solutes, averaged over

1522: solvent configurations. The main results of this investigation may be

1523: summarized as follows:

1524: 

1525: 1. The density profiles of water around a single, neutral solute

1526:    ($\Sn$ model), and their variation with solute radius $R$

1527:    (cf. Fig.~3) exhibit the characteristic ``destructuring'' for radii

1528:    $R\gtrsim 5$\AA~ already reported by earlier studies.

1529:    \cite{stilinger,huang:jpc,lum:jpc} The water molecules exhibit no

1530:    significant orientational ordering around neutral nano-sized solutes.

1531: 

1532: 2. The hydrogen and oxygen density profiles change dramatically when

1533:    the solute is uniformly charged (${\rm S}_\pm$ models).  These

1534:    profiles are sensitive to the anionic or cationic nature of the

1535:    solute (for a given absolute charge $|Q|$), in addition the

1536:    hydrogen profiles exhibit a splitting of the main peak in the case

1537:    of anionic ($\Sm$) solutes (cf. Fig.~5). The orientational order

1538:    parameter $P(r)$ exhibits a significant structure, and a relatively

1539:    slow decay with $r$, indicative of strong orientational ordering

1540:    around the solutes $\Sp$ or $\Sm$, which is somewhat more

1541:    pronounced around an anionic solute. The hydration asymmetry

1542:    results in preferential solvation of anionic solutes for a given

1543:    radius and absolute charge $|Q|$, in agreement with earlier

1544:    findings. \cite{hummer:jpc:1996,lynden-bell,garde:2004}

1545: 

1546: 3. Moving from uniformly charged solutes to discrete (tetrahedral or

1547:    cubic) charge patterns, the hydration of nano-sized solutes is found to

1548:    exhibit a strong angular modulation associated with the hydrophilic

1549:    ``patches'' around the discrete surface charges, and hydrophobic

1550:    ``patches'' in between (cf. Fig. 6). The conflicting hydration

1551:    patterns lead to a surprising depletion of water around $\Tp$ or

1552:    $\Tm$ solutes, compared to a neutral solute $\Sn$. The solvation

1553:    free energy is found to be about 20 $\%$ lower for solutes with

1554:    discrete charge patterns compared to that of uniformly charged

1555:    solutes with the same overall charge (cf. Fig. 9).

1556: 

1557: 4. The present simulations confirm the strong hydrophobic attraction

1558:    between two neutral spherical nano-sized solutes linked to solvent

1559:    ``drying'', which was already reported earlier for similar

1560:    models. The MD results for solute radii $R\gtrsim 5$\AA~ are nearly

1561:    quantitatively reproduced by a simple calculation based on purely

1562:    macroscopic considerations, and the force at solute-solute contact

1563:    is found to scale roughly linearly with $R$.

1564: 

1565: 5. The effective attraction between neutral solutes is strongly

1566:    reduced, or turns into a repulsion, when the nano-sized solutes carry

1567:    equal, uniform charge distributions. The total force has a

1568:    repulsive electrostatic component, while examination of the water

1569:    density profiles shows that the ``drying'' is mostly

1570:    suppressed. The effective force is systematically less attractive

1571:    (or more repulsive) between pairs of cationic solutes compared to

1572:    anionic pairs (cf. Fig. 17). Turning to a pair of oppositely (but

1573:    uniformly) charged solutes, the MD simulations show that the range

1574:    of the effective attraction decreases when the absolute charge

1575:    $|Q|$ increases, again in agreement with simple macroscopic

1576:    considerations, but that the effective force at contact seems to be

1577:    independent of $Q$, and equal to the hydrophobic force between

1578:    neutral solutes; we have no explanation for this surprising

1579:    observation.

1580: 

1581: 6. The situation for discrete solute charge patterns is, not

1582:    surprisingly, more complex, due to the competition between the

1583:    resulting hydrophilic and hydrophobic ``patches'' on the solute

1584:    surface. On average, some ``drying'' of water is observed, and the

1585:    resulting mean force between solutes carrying tetrahedral or cubic

1586:    patterns is once more attractive, despite the electrostatic

1587:    repulsion (``like-charge attraction''). This effect is obviously

1588:    incompatible with crude ``implicit solvent'' models.

1589: 

1590: 7.  The complete break-down of ``implicit solvent'' models, whereby

1591: the latter is replaced by a dielectric continuum, is further

1592: illustrated by the highly coarse-grained representation of the

1593: configurational probability density of two solutes carrying discrete

1594: charge distributions, introduced in Sec.~V. The relative orientations

1595: of the surface charge patterns on the two solutes are completely

1596: different for explicit and implicit solvent models, particularly at

1597: short surface-to-surface distances $s$ (cf. Figs. 24 and 25).

1598: 

1599: The key message of the present work is that explicit solvent models

1600: are unavoidable for a proper description of the effective interactions

1601: between nano-sized solutes like proteins, and that the latter are extremely

1602: sensitive to the precise location of any electric charges carried by

1603: the solutes. Contrarily to effective interactions on larger colloidal

1604: scales, a generic coarse-graining strategy appears to be useless when

1605: solutes in the nanometer range are considered, and fully molecular

1606: models are required for realistic simulations.

1607: 

1608: \section{Acknowledgments}

1609: JD acknowledges the financial support of EPSRC within the Portfolio

1610: Grant RG37352. We thank A. Archer and V. Ballenegger for useful

1611: discussions, and A.A. Louis for using the computer cluster Ice.

1612: 

1613: \section{Appendix A: Simulation details}

1614: The simulations were performed with the DLPOLY2 \cite{dlpoly}

1615: package. The Berendsen barostat and thermostat \cite{berendsen:jcp}

1616: were used to maintain the SPC/E water at a pressure of 1 bar and a

1617: temperature $T=300$K.  For the simulations of the solutes with

1618: inhomogeneous charge distributions (T and C models) we used the rigid

1619: body algorithm with quaternions to properly account for the rotation

1620: of the anisotropic solutes. To this end we switched to an integration

1621: routine using the Nos{\'e}-Hoover barostat and thermostat, which

1622: turned out to be more stable in conjunction with quaternions. We

1623: carefully checked that both barostats give the same results by

1624: performing tests with bulk water, treated both with bond contraints

1625: and with the rigid body algorithm. Test runs using the Nos{\'e}-Hoover

1626: barostat and thermostat for the S models also showed no difference.

1627: 

1628: The simulation cell is a periodically repeated cube with a maximum

1629: boxlength of about $L=48$\AA, containing up to $N_{\rm w}$=3000 water

1630: molecules, depending on the solute size. For simulations of one

1631: isolated solute we required that the surface-to-surface distance to

1632: the nearest image solute was 20\AA, yielding a box size of

1633: $L=2R+20$\AA. For the calculation of the interaction force between two

1634: solutes, the latter are placed at fixed positions ${{\vec R}_1}$ and

1635: ${{\vec R}_2}$ on the body diagonal of the simulation cell. The center

1636: to center distance is then ${R_{12}}={|{\vec R}_1}-{{\vec

1637: R}_2}|$.  The corresponding box dimensions are chosen such that the

1638: surface-to-surface distance $s={R_{12}}-2R_{0}$ to the nearest image

1639: solute is 20\AA. The box length can be calculated as $L=(4R+s+20{\rm

1640: \AA})/\sqrt{3}$.  Due to the constant pressure constraint the box length

1641: fluctuates slightly in the simulations. The long range electrostatic

1642: interactions were evaluated with smooth particle-mesh Ewald (SPME)

1643: summations \cite{essmann:jcp} using 16 $\vec k$ vectors in each

1644: direction and a convergence parameter of 3.2$/r_{\rm cut}$. A

1645: cutoff distance $r_{\rm cut}=9$\AA~ was used for LJ-interactions and

1646: the real space SPME contributions. For the nanosized solutes

1647: a larger cut-off radius is obviously required. We optimize the computational

1648: speed by introducing a second cutoff for the solute-water and

1649: solute-ion interactions, chosen to be $R_0+4$\AA, sufficient large for

1650: the shifted, short ranged repulsive interaction~(\ref{eq:solutepot}).

1651: 

1652: \section{Appendix B: Finite corrections for solvation free energies from simulation}

1653: Accurate solavtion free energies for charged

1654: solutes can be obtained by Ewald summations in periodic cells\cite{hansen} when the

1655: self-interacion energy of the solute charges with its periodic images

1656: and the background charge is properly included.\cite{hummer:jpc:1996}

1657: This correction is slightly modified when the solute size $R$ is

1658: comparable to the box size $L$.\cite{hummer:jcp:1997} The final

1659: expression for the electrostatic contribution to the solvation free

1660: energy for our solute models, including the finite size corrections,

1661: is:

1662: \begin{eqnarray}

1663: \Delta\mu_\pm &=& \Delta\mu_\pm^{\rm sim} \cr & + &

1664:  \frac{e^2}{8\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{\epsilon-1}{\epsilon} \left(\frac{\xi_{\rm

1665:  EW}}{L}\sum_{\alpha=1}^{N_{\rm c}}q_{\alpha}^{2}+\frac{2\pi

1666:  R^2}{3L^3}\sum_{\alpha=1}^{N_{\rm c}}q_{\alpha}^2\right) \cr

1667:  &+&\frac{e^2}{8\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{\epsilon-1}{\epsilon}\sum_{\alpha=1}^{N_{\rm

1668:  c}}\sum_{\beta\neq\alpha,1}^{N_{\rm c}}q_{\alpha} q_{\beta} \left(\phi_{\rm

1669:  EW}(\vec r_{\alpha\beta})-\frac{1}{|\vec r_{\alpha\beta}|}\right),\nonumber \\

1670: \label{eq:correct}

1671: \end{eqnarray}

1672: where $\epsilon$ is the macroscopic permittivity of water, and for a

1673: periodic array of cubic simulation cells,

1674: $\xi_{EW}\approx-2.837297$. In the case of a uniformly charged

1675: solute corresponding to a single charged site $qe$ at the center, the

1676: result (\ref{eq:correct}) reduces to\cite{hummer:jcp:1997}

1677: \begin{eqnarray}

1678: \Delta\mu_{\pm}=\Delta\mu_\pm^{\rm sim}+\frac{q^2 e^2}{8\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{\epsilon-1}{\epsilon}\left(\frac{\xi_{\rm EW}}{L}+\frac{2\pi R^2}{3L^3}\right).

1679: \label{eq:correct2}

1680: \end{eqnarray}

1681: With the system sizes used in the present simulation the finite size

1682: corrections are very large and represent typically twice the value of

1683: $\Delta\mu_{\rm sim}$ and stem mainly from the $\xi_{\rm EW}$-term in

1684: Eqs.~(19) and (20).

1685: 

1686: \begin{thebibliography}{29}

1687: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1688: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax

1689:   \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi

1690: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax

1691:   \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi

1692: \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax

1693:   \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi

1694: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax

1695:   \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi

1696: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi

1697: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}

1698: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}

1699: 

1700: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Rubinstein and Colby}(2003)}]{rubinstein}

1701: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Rubinstein}} \bibnamefont{and}

1702:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~H.} \bibnamefont{Colby}},

1703:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Polymer Physics}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{Oxford

1704:   University Press}, \bibinfo{year}{2003}).

1705: 

1706: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Chandler}(2004)}]{chandler_review}

1707: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Chandler}}

1708:   (\bibinfo{year}{2004}), \bibinfo{note}{to appear in Nature}.

1709: 

1710: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Likos}(2001)}]{likos:physrep}

1711: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~N.} \bibnamefont{Likos}},

1712:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rep.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{348}},

1713:   \bibinfo{pages}{267} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).

1714: 

1715: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Stilinger}(1973)}]{stilinger}

1716: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.~H.} \bibnamefont{Stilinger}},

1717:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Solution Chem.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{2}},

1718:   \bibinfo{pages}{141} (\bibinfo{year}{1973}).

1719: 

1720: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hummer and Garde}(1998)}]{hummer:prl}

1721: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Hummer}} \bibnamefont{and}

1722:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Garde}},

1723:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{80}},

1724:   \bibinfo{pages}{4193} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}).

1725: 

1726: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lum et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Lum, Chandler, and

1727:   Weeks}}]{lum:jpc}

1728: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Lum}},

1729:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Chandler}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1730:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~D.} \bibnamefont{Weeks}},

1731:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. Chem. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{103}},

1732:   \bibinfo{pages}{4570} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).

1733: 

1734: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Huang et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Huang, Geissler, and

1735:   Chandler}}]{huang:jpc}

1736: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~M.} \bibnamefont{Huang}},

1737:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~L.} \bibnamefont{Geissler}},

1738:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Chandler}},

1739:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. Chem. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{105}},

1740:   \bibinfo{pages}{6704} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).

1741: 

1742: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Wallquist and Berne}(1995)}]{wallquist:jpc}

1743: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Wallquist}} \bibnamefont{and}

1744:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.~J.} \bibnamefont{Berne}},

1745:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. Chem.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{99}},

1746:   \bibinfo{pages}{2893} (\bibinfo{year}{1995}).

1747: 

1748: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Shinto et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Shinto, Miyahara, and

1749:   Higashitani}}]{shinto}

1750: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Shinto}},

1751:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Miyahara}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1752:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Higashitani}},

1753:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Coll. Interface Sci.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{209}},

1754:   \bibinfo{pages}{79} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).

1755: 

1756: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kinoshita et~al.}(1996)\citenamefont{Kinoshita, Iba,

1757:   Kuwamoto, and Harada}}]{kinoshita}

1758: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Kinoshita}},

1759:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Iba}},

1760:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Kuwamoto}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1761:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Harada}},

1762:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{105}},

1763:   \bibinfo{pages}{7177} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}).

1764: 

1765: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Qin and Fichthorn}(2003)}]{qin}

1766: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Qin}} \bibnamefont{and}

1767:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~A.} \bibnamefont{Fichthorn}},

1768:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{119}},

1769:   \bibinfo{pages}{9745} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

1770: 

1771: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Allahyarov et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Allahyarov,

1772:   L{\"o}wen, Louis, and Hansen}}]{elshad:epl:2002}

1773: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Allahyarov}},

1774:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{L{\"o}wen}},

1775:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Louis}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1776:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Hansen}},

1777:   \bibinfo{journal}{Europhys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{57}},

1778:   \bibinfo{pages}{731} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

1779: 

1780: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Berendsen et~al.}(1987)\citenamefont{Berendsen,

1781:   Grigera, and Straatsma}}]{berendsen:jpc}

1782: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~J.~C.} \bibnamefont{Berendsen}},

1783:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~R.} \bibnamefont{Grigera}},

1784:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~P.}

1785:   \bibnamefont{Straatsma}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. Chem.}

1786:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{91}}, \bibinfo{pages}{6269} (\bibinfo{year}{1987}).

1787: 

1788: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Dzubiella and Hansen}(2003)}]{dzubiella:jcp:2003}

1789: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Dzubiella}} \bibnamefont{and}

1790:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.-P.} \bibnamefont{Hansen}},

1791:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{119}},

1792:   \bibinfo{pages}{12049} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

1793: 

1794: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Spohr}(1999)}]{spohr:1999}

1795: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Spohr}},

1796:   \bibinfo{journal}{Electrochim. Acta} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{44}},

1797:   \bibinfo{pages}{1697} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).

1798: 

1799: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Essmann et~al.}(1995)\citenamefont{Essmann, Perera,

1800:   Berkowitz, Darden, Lee, and Pedersen}}]{essmann:jcp}

1801: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{U.}~\bibnamefont{Essmann}},

1802:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Perera}},

1803:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~L.} \bibnamefont{Berkowitz}},

1804:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Darden}},

1805:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Lee}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1806:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~G.} \bibnamefont{Pedersen}},

1807:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{103}},

1808:   \bibinfo{pages}{8577} (\bibinfo{year}{1995}).

1809: 

1810: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Smith and Forester}(1999)}]{dlpoly}

1811: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Smith}} \bibnamefont{and}

1812:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~R.} \bibnamefont{Forester}}

1813:   (\bibinfo{year}{1999}), \bibinfo{note}{the DLPOLY\_2 User Manual}.

1814: 

1815: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Frenkel and Smit}(1996)}]{frenkelsmit}

1816: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Frenkel}} \bibnamefont{and}

1817:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Smit}},

1818:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Understanding Molecular Simulation: From Algorithms to

1819:   Applications}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{Academic Press}, \bibinfo{year}{1996}).

1820: 

1821: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Born}(1920)}]{born}

1822: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Born}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Z.

1823:   Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{1}}, \bibinfo{pages}{45}

1824:   (\bibinfo{year}{1920}).

1825: 

1826: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Reiss et~al.}(1959)\citenamefont{Reiss, Frisch, and

1827:   Lebowitz}}]{reiss:jcp:1959}

1828: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Reiss}},

1829:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~L.} \bibnamefont{Frisch}},

1830:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~L.}

1831:   \bibnamefont{Lebowitz}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.}

1832:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{31}}, \bibinfo{pages}{369} (\bibinfo{year}{1959}).

1833: 

1834: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Latimer et~al.}(1939)\citenamefont{Latimer, Pitzer, and

1835:   Slansky}}]{latimer:jcp:1939}

1836: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~M.} \bibnamefont{Latimer}},

1837:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~S.} \bibnamefont{Pitzer}},

1838:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~M.}

1839:   \bibnamefont{Slansky}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.}

1840:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{7}}, \bibinfo{pages}{108} (\bibinfo{year}{1939}).

1841: 

1842: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hummer et~al.}(1996)\citenamefont{Hummer, Pratt, and

1843:   Garcia}}]{hummer:jpc:1996}

1844: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Hummer}},

1845:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Pratt}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1846:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~E.} \bibnamefont{Garcia}},

1847:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. Chem.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{100}},

1848:   \bibinfo{pages}{1206} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}).

1849: 

1850: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hummer et~al.}(1997)\citenamefont{Hummer, Pratt, and

1851:   Garcia}}]{hummer:jcp:1997}

1852: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Hummer}},

1853:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Pratt}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1854:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~E.} \bibnamefont{Garcia}},

1855:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{107}},

1856:   \bibinfo{pages}{9275} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}).

1857: 

1858: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lynden-Bell and Rasaiah}(1997)}]{lynden-bell}

1859: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~M.} \bibnamefont{Lynden-Bell}}

1860:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~C.}

1861:   \bibnamefont{Rasaiah}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.}

1862:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{107}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1981} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}).

1863: 

1864: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Rajamani et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Rajamani, Ghosh,

1865:   and Garde}}]{garde:2004}

1866: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Rajamani}},

1867:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Ghosh}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1868:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Garde}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J.

1869:   Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{120}}, \bibinfo{pages}{4457}

1870:   (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).

1871: 

1872: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bolhuis and Chandler}(2000)}]{bolhuis}

1873: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~G.} \bibnamefont{Bolhuis}} \bibnamefont{and}

1874:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Chandler}},

1875:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{113}},

1876:   \bibinfo{pages}{8154} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).

1877: 

1878: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Louis et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Louis, Bolhuis, and

1879:   Hansen}}]{louis:jcp}

1880: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~A.} \bibnamefont{Louis}},

1881:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~G.} \bibnamefont{Bolhuis}},

1882:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~P.}

1883:   \bibnamefont{Hansen}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.}

1884:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{117}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1893} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

1885: 

1886: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Berendsen et~al.}(1984)\citenamefont{Berendsen, Postma,

1887:   van Gunsteren, DiNola, and Haak}}]{berendsen:jcp}

1888: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~J.~C.} \bibnamefont{Berendsen}},

1889:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~P.~M.} \bibnamefont{Postma}},

1890:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~F.} \bibnamefont{van Gunsteren}},

1891:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{DiNola}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1892:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~R.} \bibnamefont{Haak}},

1893:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{81}},

1894:   \bibinfo{pages}{3684} (\bibinfo{year}{1984}).

1895: 

1896: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hansen}(1986)}]{hansen}

1897: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.-P.} \bibnamefont{Hansen}},

1898:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Molecular Dynamics Simulation of Statistical Mechanical

1899:   Systems}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{North Holland}, \bibinfo{address}{Amsterdam},

1900:   \bibinfo{year}{1986}), \bibinfo{note}{edited by G. Ciccotti and W.G. Hoover}.

1901: 

1902: \end{thebibliography}

1903: 

1904: 

1905: \end{document}

1906: 

1907: 

1908: 

1909: 

1910: 

1911: 

1912: