Extended Data Fig. 8: Comparison of RHP-P1, RHP-S1, and RHP-S2 to understand the effects of colocalizing EHMA and SPMA.

a, PCA analysis of RHP-P1, RHP-S1, and RHP-S2. The horizontal axis (PC1) reflects the segmental hydrophobicity, whereas the vertical axis (PC2) represents the arrangement of hydrophobic and hydrophilic blocks within the sequence. The results show that RHP-S2 exhibits higher overall hydrophobicity compared to RHP-P1 and RHP-S1. b, Distribution of SPMA-containing segments in the PCA map of RHP-S2. The horizontal axis (PC1) reflects the segmental hydrophobicity, whereas the vertical axis (PC2) represents the arrangement of hydrophobic and hydrophilic blocks within the sequence. c, Sliding window sequence analysis of monomer hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB) of RHP-P1, RHP-S1, and RHP-S2. The results show that all three RHPs exhibit similar dynamic range of segmental hydrophobicity. The RHP chain used here is arbitrarily chosen from 100,000 simulated sequences. For clarity, only the first 90 monomers are shown. d, DLS measurements of RHP-P1, RHP-S1, and RHP-S2. The measurements were performed in 10 mM phosphate buffer (pH 7.0) with a RHP concentration of 20 mg/mL, matching the conditions used for the CA cyclization reaction. Number averaged diameter is shown here.