Water-assisted electronic transport in graphene nanogaps for DNA sequencing

Alexandre Reily Rocha; Ernane de Freitas Martins; Gustavo Troiano Feliciano; Ralph Hendrik Scheicher; Rodrigo G. Amorim

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Water-assisted electronic transport in graphene nanogaps for DNA sequencing

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Water molecules, treated as quantum objects, become part of the electron path across a graphene nanogap used for DNA sequencing.

desk verdict A clean QM/MM-NEGF comparison that makes a plausible mechanistic case for water-mediated tunneling in graphene nanogaps, but the PBE orbital alignment is unbenchmarked and the orders-of-magnitude claim should be treated as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02258 v1 pith:BABRKMUM submitted 2019-08-06 cond-mat.mes-hall physics.bio-ph

Ernane de Freitas Martins , Rodrigo G. Amorim , Gustavo Troiano Feliciano , Ralph Hendrik Scheicher , Alexandre Reily Rocha This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.bio-ph

keywords DNAsequencinggraphenenanogapquantumtransportwater-assistedconductionsolventeffectsQM/MMnon-equilibriumGreen'sfunctionsmolecularelectronics

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that in a graphene nanogap tunneling device for DNA sequencing, water is not an inert background: when the first hydration shell is treated quantum mechanically, the computed transmission through each nucleotide rises by several orders of magnitude compared with treating water only as a classical electrostatic potential. The extra current follows a specific pathway: electrons leave the graphene electrode, pass through water-localized states, then through the nucleotide, and finally reach the opposite electrode. If this is right, realistic modeling of wet nanogap sequencing devices must include explicit water electronic states, and such devices remain capable of distinguishing all four DNA nucleotides by their conductance signatures.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a hybrid quantum/classical molecular dynamics plus non-equilibrium Green's functions transport setup on a nitrogen-terminated graphene nanogap about 17 angstroms wide, with snapshots taken from classical trajectories and the first water layer either excluded or included in the quantum region. The central quantity is the zero-bias transmission $T(E_F)$, which controls conductance through the Fisher-Lee relation, and the local bond-current projection that decomposes the current into sheet, water, and nucleotide contributions. Geometric averaging over fifty uncorrelated snapshots is used to tame the exponential sensitivity of tunneling to molecular configurations.

What would settle it

Recompute the transmission for the same snapshots with a hybrid functional or a many-body self-energy correction and check whether the water-assisted pathway survives; if the water-mediated conductance increase disappears or shrinks dramatically, the predicted mechanism is an artifact of the approximate functional. Experimentally, measuring the current through a nitrogen-terminated graphene nanogap of the same width with controlled humidity or hydration would test whether the predicted water-assisted conductance is real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that explicitly including one quantum-mechanical layer of water in the scattering region (setup II) increases the average transmission at the Fermi level for all four nucleotides by several orders of magnitude relative to a classical-potential treatment (setup I). Local bond-current analysis on a representative snapshot shows that the dominant current path is graphene to water, water to nucleotide, and nucleotide to graphene, so water states actively participate in the tunneling process rather than merely shifting molecular energy levels. The device also shows high sensitivity against the wet empty gap and selectivity among adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine at small bias voltages near the Fermi level.

Load-bearing premise

The calculated orders-of-magnitude increase in conductance rests on the assumption that a generalized-gradient density functional with a double-zeta basis places the water and nucleotide frontier-orbital tails at the correct energies and decay lengths relative to the graphene Fermi level.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Treating water purely as a classical electrostatic background is insufficient for nanogap tunneling devices, because explicit water states can change the computed conductance by orders of magnitude.
The four DNA nucleotides remain distinguishable at energies near the Fermi level, so an all-electronic graphene nanogap could in principle identify individual bases under wet physiological conditions.
Because transport is non-resonant, the tails of water and nucleotide frontier states contribute comparably, meaning the first hydration shell should be included in any quantum transport model of a wet gap.
The same water-assisted mechanism may affect the interpretation of other nanogap or nanopore conductance measurements where hydration is present.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: The water-assisted tunneling mechanism is probably not unique to graphene or to DNA; any aqueous nanogap junction with an appreciable gap could develop conductance bridges through hydration-shell states, which would affect single-molecule break-junction and nanopore experiments generally.
Editorial inference: If the effect depends on the alignment of water frontier-orbital tails with the electrode Fermi level, then gap width and edge termination become tunable knobs for water-mediated conductance, and isotopic substitution or pH changes could provide experimental tests of the mechanism.
Editorial inference: The result implies a baseline leakage current through water in wet nanogap sensors; distinguishing nucleotide signals may require careful subtraction of this water-mediated background rather than assuming the empty gap is insulating.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

This paper makes a specific, testable claim: in a graphene nanogap tunneling geometry, explicitly quantum-mechanical water molecules participate in the tunneling path and increase transmission by orders of magnitude, rather than merely gating the nucleotide electrostatically. The two-setup comparison (water in MM vs. one water layer in QM) is the right design, and the result is consistent across all four nucleotides. That is a real and useful observation, and it directly corrects the earlier same-group conclusion that water only shifts energy levels. The local current analysis supports the water-bridge picture, though it comes from a single selected frame.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The central quantitative claim rests on PBE Kohn-Sham eigenvalues in an off-resonant tunneling regime, where transmission decays exponentially with the inverse decay length of water frontier states. PBE self-interaction error can shift those states by an eV or more, and over a 17 Å gap that easily changes transmission by orders of magnitude. The paper does not benchmark against hybrid functionals, GW, or any experimental tunneling data, so the magnitude of the effect is unvalidated. The local current maps are computed from the same Kohn-Sham Hamiltonian, so they do not independently confirm the mechanism. There are also no error bars on the geometric mean transmissions, and the sensitivity/selectivity claims extrapolate from zero-bias transmission to a sequencing device without discussing finite bias or dynamics.

The citation pattern is fine; earlier same-group papers are used as baselines, not as inputs that force the result. The math in Eqs. (1)-(5) is standard and correctly applied. The paper is honest about its own assumptions, and the claim is falsifiable with a higher-level electronic structure calculation.

Who is this for? Computational nanogap and nanopore transport people, especially those simulating DNA sequencing devices. It deserves serious referee time, but the referee should push hard on the functional-dependence question. My own verdict would be conditional: the qualitative water-bridge mechanism is plausible, the quantitative orders-of-magnitude claim needs a benchmark.

Recommendation: send to peer review with a request for a benchmark calculation (e.g., hybrid functional or G0W0 on a representative snapshot) and for error estimates on the transmission averages.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a QM/MM-NEGF computational study of DNA nucleotide detection in a nitrogen-terminated graphene nanogap device. Two QM partitions are compared: setup I treats all water classically, while setup II includes one layer of water molecules in the quantum region. The central claim is that explicitly including water states increases the average transmission by several orders of magnitude for all four nucleotides, with local current analysis indicating that electrons flow from the graphene sheet into water states and then into the nucleotide before reaching the right electrode. The authors further report high sensitivity and selectivity of the device, concluding that water is not merely an electrostatic background but an active participant in tunneling transport.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this work would substantially revise the common modeling practice of treating solvent exclusively as a classical electrostatic environment in nanogap-based DNA sequencing devices. The qualitative mechanism---water states acting as tunneling bridges in an off-resonant regime---is physically plausible and potentially important for interpreting and designing sequencing experiments. The methodology is state of the art for this class of problems: 50 MD snapshots per nucleotide with a QM/MM-NEGF transport calculation, geometric averaging over snapshots, and bond-current analysis are all appropriate. The manuscript makes a falsifiable prediction (conductance enhancement through water states) that could be tested experimentally. However, the quantitative claims rest on PBE-level Kohn-Sham transmission and lack uncertainty quantification, so the significance is conditional on those points being addressed.

major comments (3)

[Section 2, Eqs. (1)-(4); Section 3] The central claim depends on the exponential sensitivity of off-resonant tunneling to the energy alignment of water frontier states relative to the graphene Fermi level. In the off-resonant regime, the transmission decays as exp(-2κL) with κ determined by sqrt(2m|E_F - E_state|)/ħ, and the paper itself states (Section 3) that "the tail of states from the base and water molecule play similar roles." A modest PBE self-interaction error, which can shift water HOMO/LUMO levels by several eV, will change κ sufficiently that over the 17 Å gap the calculated transmission changes by orders of magnitude. Because the transmission in Eq. (3) is evaluated from the PBE Kohn-Sham Hamiltonian and the local-current maps in Figs. 3-4 are derived from the same eigenstates, they do not provide independent confirmation. The manuscript contains no benchmark against hybrid functionals, GW quasiparticle levels, or experimental water tunneling data. I request a sensitivity test: for at least one representative frame, compare PBE transmission with a hybrid-functional calculation or apply a rigid shift to the water-state energies and show that the qualitative increase in transmission persists.
[Figure 2 and Figure 5, Section 3] The quantitative claims, including "several orders of magnitude" increase and the conclusion that all nucleotides are distinguishable, are based on geometric averages of transmission over 50 snapshots, but no error bars, standard deviations, or interquartile ranges are reported. Without an estimate of the spread across snapshots, it is impossible to judge whether the differences between nucleotides in the sensitivity and selectivity defined by Eqs. (6)-(7) are statistically significant, or whether the reported orders-of-magnitude enhancement could be dominated by a few high-transmission configurations. Provide at least the distribution (e.g., box plots or error bars on the average transmission) for each nucleotide and each setup.
[Section 2, QM/MM partition definition] The manuscript defines setup II as including "one layer of water" in the QM partition but does not specify the criterion used to select these water molecules (e.g., distance from the nucleotide or from the graphene edges). Since the central result is the contribution of water states to transport, the choice of this cutoff is a free parameter that could materially affect the magnitude of the reported transmission increase. Please define the selection rule explicitly and, if feasible, show that the conclusions are robust to a reasonable variation of this cutoff (for example, including half a layer versus one full layer).

minor comments (5)

[Figure 3 caption] The black curve in Fig. 3d is described as "the system without a nucleotide (reference system)", but the text does not specify whether this reference includes the QM water layer or how the reference frame is chosen; please define it in the methodology.
[Introduction, paragraph 3] The sentence "In all cases the devices were conducting" is ambiguous: it appears to refer to the authors' previous work, but reads as a statement about the current simulations. Please rephrase to clarify the scope.
[Section 2, QM/MM methodology] When setup II moves water molecules into the QM region, it is not stated whether those molecules are removed from the MM electrostatic potential or how the QM/MM boundary is handled for the water molecules. A sentence clarifying how the external MM potential is constructed in each setup would improve reproducibility.
[Equations (6)-(7) and Figure 5] The notation E' = E - E_F is introduced, but the caption of Figure 5 states "Fermi Energy already subtracted" while the text refers to energies like -0.05 eV, 0.0 eV, and 0.05 eV; please make the usage consistent and define whether these are gate voltages measured relative to E_F.
[Figure 4] The local current arrows in Figure 4 are normalized by the largest bond current in each of six regions, but the text does not state how the regions are divided or what the normalization achieves for the reader; a brief explanation would aid interpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No material circularity: the water-assisted transport claim is obtained from an open NEGF/DFT calculation, not from a fit or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The central claim is that explicitly quantum-mechanical water states increase transmission in the graphene nanogap (Sec. 3: "when the water molecules are considered explicitly (setup II), the average transmission increases for all nucleotides by several orders of magnitude"). This is a computed difference between two QM partitions defined in Sec. 2, evaluated with the Kohn-Sham Hamiltonian through the NEGF formulas in Eqs. (1)-(3). No parameter is fitted to the target transmissions; the sensitivity and selectivity in Eqs. (6)-(7) are ratios of the same computed transmissions. The local-current decomposition in Eq. (5) is derived from the Green's function and provides a mechanistic rationalization, not a fitted input. Self-citations (refs. 12, 15, 21, 25) motivate the device, the QM/MM methodology, and prior baseline results, but they do not enter the Hamiltonian or the transport calculation, so they are not load-bearing for the new result. A small score allowance reflects the paper's reliance on its own earlier QM/MM and nanogap studies for setup choices and comparisons; nevertheless, this is not circular because the new calculation is self-contained and the outcome was not assumed in the inputs. The main vulnerability, that PBE self-interaction error may misalign water frontier orbitals and thereby exaggerate the orders-of-magnitude increase, is an accuracy concern rather than a circularity; the derivation does not reduce to its own conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No genuinely new entities are introduced. The free parameters are device geometry and the QM/MM partition boundary, both chosen by hand. The central result rests on DFT and force-field accuracy, plus the assumption that the setup I/II comparison isolates the electronic effect of water. No fitted constants enter the transmission calculation, so circularity burden is low.

free parameters (2)

nanogap separation = 17 Å
Fixed device geometry rather than fitted to data. The tunneling enhancement from water bridge states is exponentially sensitive to this width, and no width dependence study is reported.
QM water layer cutoff = first hydration layer
The boundary between QM and MM water is chosen by hand. Transmission enhancement depends on which water molecules are allowed to contribute electronic states.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption PBE-GGA Kohn-Sham Hamiltonian accurately describes transmission through graphene, nucleotide, and water states.
Equation (1) and Section 2 set the Hamiltonian to the Kohn-Sham Hamiltonian. No benchmark against higher-level theory or experiment is provided.
domain assumption AMBER99SB and SPC classical force fields produce representative nucleotide and water configurations.
Used for 10 ns molecular dynamics and the QM/MM external potential. Force field accuracy is assumed rather than tested.
domain assumption Coherent zero-bias NEGF transmission with geometric averaging over 50 MD snapshots captures the measurable device signal.
Equations (2) through (4) assume coherent transport and an ensemble represented by snapshots. Finite-bias, inelastic, and nuclear tunneling effects are not included.
domain assumption Adjacent nucleotides do not alter transport through the isolated nucleotide.
Isolated nucleotides are used, justified by prior refs. 13 and 15. This is cited rather than demonstrated in the present work.
domain assumption Classical treatment of outer water and ions in setup I correctly captures electrostatics, isolating the electronic water-state effect in setup II.
The setup I/II comparison is the key evidence. If the QM/MM embedding of setup I is not converged, the water-state effect could be contaminated by electrostatic artifacts.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Water-assisted electronic transport in graphene nanogaps for DNA sequencing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BABRKMUM

@misc{pith2026190802258,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Water-assisted electronic transport in graphene nanogaps for DNA sequencing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BABRKMUM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02258}
}

read the original abstract

Innovative methodologies for reliably and inexpensively sequencing DNA can lead to a new era of personalized medicine. In this work, we performed a theoretical investigation of a nanogap-based all electronic DNA sequencing device. To do so, we used a nitrogen-terminated nanogap on a graphene sheet with the environment fully taken into account. Our investigation is performed using a hybrid methodology combining quantum and classical mechanics coupled to non-equilibrium Green's functions for solving the electron transport across the device. The obtained results show that the DNA nucleotides can be both detected and distinguished in such device, which indicates that it can be used as a DNA sequencing device providing very high sensitivity and selectivity. Furthermore, our results show that water plays a major role in electronic transport in nanoscopic tunneling devices, not only from an electrostatics point of view, but also by providing states that significantly increase the conductance in nanogap-based DNA sequencing devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02258 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Average electronic transmission as function of energy for all nucleotides using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Upper panel: on the example of Guanine, we illustrate the different subsystems [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Top and side view for the currents on the example of nucleotide T. The arrows’ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (a) Sensitivity for A, C, T and G with respect to the nanogap in liquid without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

[1]

Liang, J

L. Liang, J. W. Shen, Z. Zhang, Q. Wang, DNA sequencing by two-dimensional materials: As theoretical modeling meets experiments, Biosensors and Bioelectronics 89 (2017) 280–292

work page 2017
[2]

Shendure, S

J. Shendure, S. Balasubramanian, G. M. Church, W. Gilbert, J. Rogers, J. A. Schloss, R. H. Waterston, DNA sequencing at 40: Past, present and future, Nature 550 (2017) 345–353

work page 2017
[3]

W. J. Ansorge, Next-generation DNA sequencing techniques, New Biotechnology 25 (2009) 195–203

work page 2009
[4]

M. L. Metzker, Sequencing technologies the next generation, Nature Reviews Genetics 11 (2010) 31–46

work page 2010
[5]

H. P. J. Buermans, J. T. D. Dunnen, M. L. Metzker, S. Goodwin, J. D. McPherson, W. R. McCombie, S. E. Levy, R. M. Myers, Coming of age: Ten years of next-generation sequencing technologies, Nature Reviews Genetics 17 (2016) 95–115

work page 2016
[6]

Di Ventra, M

M. Di Ventra, M. Taniguchi, Decoding DNA, RNA and peptides with quantum tunnelling, Nature Nanotechnology 11 (2016) 117–126

work page 2016
[8]

S. J. Heerema, C. Dekker, Graphene nanodevices for dna sequencing, Nat Nano 11 (2016) 127 – 136

work page 2016
[9]

Lagerqvist, M

J. Lagerqvist, M. Zwolak, M. Di Ventra, Fast DNA Sequencing via transeverse electronic transport, Nano Lett. 6 (2006) 779–782

work page 2006

Show all 48 references

[10]

G. F. Schneider, S. W. Kowalczyk, V. E. Calado, G. Pandraud, H. W. Zandbergen, L. M. K. Vandersypen, C. Dekker, DNA Translocation through Grapheme Nanopores, Nano Letters 10 (2010) 3163–3167. 13

2010
[11]

J. Feng, K. Liu, R. D. Bulushev, S. Khlybov, D. Dumcenco, A. Kis, A. Radenovic, Identiﬁcation of Single Nucleotides in MoS2 Nanopores, Nat. Nanotechnol. 10 (2015) 1070

2015
[12]

G. T. Feliciano, C. Sanz-Navarro, M. D. Coutinho-Neto, P. Ordej´ on, R. H. Scheicher, A. R. Rocha, Capacitive DNA Detection Driven by Electronic Charge Fluctuations in a Graphene Nanopore, Physical Re- view Applied 3 (2015) 034003

2015
[13]

Prasongkit, E

J. Prasongkit, E. d. F. Martins, F. A. L. de Souza, W. L. Scopel, R. G. Amorim, V. Amornkitbamrung, A. R. Rocha, R. H. Scheicher, Topo- logical Line Defects Around Graphene Nanopores for DNA Sequencing, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 122 (2018) 7094–7099

2018
[14]

Prasongkit, A

J. Prasongkit, A. Grigoriev, B. Pathak, R. Ahuja, R. H. Scheicher, Theoretical Study of Electronic Transport through DNA Nucleotides in a Double-Functionalized Graphene Nanogap, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 117 (2013) 15421–15428

2013
[15]

R. G. Amorim, A. R. Rocha, R. H. Scheicher, Boosting DNA Recogni- tion Sensitivity of Graphene Nanogaps through Nitrogen Edge Function- alization, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 120 (2016) 19384–19388

2016
[16]

Sivaraman, R

G. Sivaraman, R. G. Amorim, R. H. Scheicher, M. Fyta, Diamondoid- functionalized gold nanogaps as sensors for natural, mutated, and epige- netically modiﬁed DNA nucleotides, Nanoscale 8 (2016) 10105–10112

2016
[17]

Sivaraman, R

G. Sivaraman, R. G. Amorim, R. H. Scheicher, M. Fyta, Insights into the detection of mutations and epigenetic markers using diamondoid- functionalized sensors, RSC Adv. 7 (2017) 43064–43072

2017
[18]

H. W. C. Postma, Rapid Sequencing of Individual DNA Molecules in Graphene Nanogaps, NANO LETTERS 10 (2010) 420–425

2010
[19]

R. H. Scheicher, A. Grigoriev, R. Ahuja, DNA sequencing with nanopores from an ab initio perspective, Journal of Materials Science 47 (2012) 7439–7446

2012
[20]

K. S. Novoselov, a. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, a. a. Firsov, Electric ﬁeld eﬀect in atomically thin carbon ﬁlms., Science (New York, N.Y.) 306 (2004) 666–669. 14

2004
[21]

de Freitas Martins, G

E. de Freitas Martins, G. Troiano Feliciano, R. Hendrik Scheicher, A. Reily Rocha, Simulating dna chip design using all-electronic graphene-based substrates, Molecules 24 (2019)

2019
[22]

R. G. Amorim, R. H. Scheicher, Silicene as a new potential DNA se- quencing device, Nanotechnology 26 (2015) 154002

2015
[23]

Prasongkit, A

J. Prasongkit, A. Grigoriev, B. Pathak, R. Ahuja, R. H. Scheicher, Transverse Conductance of DNA Nucleotides in a Graphene Nanogap from First Principles, Nano Letters 11 (2011) 1941–1945

2011
[24]

Di Ventra, Fast DNA sequencing by electrical means inches closer., Nanotechnology 24 (2013) 342501

M. Di Ventra, Fast DNA sequencing by electrical means inches closer., Nanotechnology 24 (2013) 342501

2013
[25]

G. T. Feliciano, C. Sanz-Navarro, M. D. Coutinho-Neto, P. Ordejn, R. H. Scheicher, A. R. Rocha, Addressing the environment electrostatic eﬀect on ballistic electron transport in large systems: A qm/mm-negf ap- proach, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 122 (2018) 485–492

2018
[26]

Rungger, X

I. Rungger, X. Chen, U. Schwingenschl¨ ogl, S. Sanvito, Finite-bias elec- tronic transport of molecules in a water solution, Physical Review B 81 (2010) 235407

2010
[27]

H. He, R. H. Scheicher, R. Pandey, A. R. Rocha, S. Sanvito, A. Grig- oriev, R. Ahuja, S. P. Karna, Functionalized nanopore-embedded elec- trodes for rapid dna sequencing, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 112 (2008) 3456–3459

2008
[28]

H. N. Patel, I. Carroll, R. Lopez, Jr., S. Sankararaman, C. Etienne, S. R. Kodigala, M. R. Paul, H. W. C. Postma, DNA-graphene interactions during translocation through nanogaps, PLOS ONE 12 (2017)

2017
[29]

Di Ventra, M

M. Di Ventra, M. Taniguchi, Decoding DNA, RNA and peptides with quantum tunnelling, Nat. Nanotechnol. 11 (2016) 117–126

2016
[30]

Hornak, R

V. Hornak, R. Abel, A. Okur, B. Strockbine, A. Roitberg, C. Simmer- ling, Comparison of multiple amber force ﬁelds and development of improved protein backbone parameters, Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 65 (2006) 712–725. 15

2006
[31]

H. J. C. Berendsen, J. R. Grigera, T. P. Straatsma, The missing term in eﬀective pair potentials, The Journal of Physical Chemistry 91 (1987) 6269–6271

1987
[32]

v. G. W. F. Berendsen H. J. C., Postma J. P. M., H. J., Pullman B. (eds) Intermolecular Forces. The Jerusalem Symposia on Quantum Chemistry and Biochemistry, volume 14, Springer
[33]

Berendsen, D

H. Berendsen, D. van der Spoel, R. van Drunen, Gromacs: A message- passing parallel molecular dynamics implementation, Computer Physics Communications 91 (1995) 43 – 56

1995
[34]

C. F. Sanz-Navarro, R. Grima, A. Garc´ ıa, E. A. Bea, A. Soba, J. M. Cela, P. Ordej´ on, An eﬃcient implementation of a qm-mm method in siesta, Theoretical Chemistry Accounts 128 (2011) 825–833

2011
[35]

Rothlisberger, P

U. Rothlisberger, P. Carloni, Drug-Target Binding Investigated by Quantum Mechanical/Molecular Mechanical (QM/MM) Methods, vol- ume 1, Springer, Germany, p. 449
[36]

J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, M. Ernzerhof, Generalized Gradient Approxi- mation Made Simple, Physical Review Letters 77 (1996) 3865–3868

1996
[37]

Troullier, Eﬃcient pseudopotentials for plane-wave calculations, Phys

N. Troullier, Eﬃcient pseudopotentials for plane-wave calculations, Phys. Rev. B 43 (1991) 1993–2006

1991
[38]

Soler, E

M. Soler, E. Artacho, J. D. Gale, A. Garc, J. Junquera, P. Ordej, S. Daniel, The SIESTA method for ab initio order- N materials, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2745 (2002) 2745–2779

2002
[39]

Datta, Quantum Transport: Atom to Transistor, Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2 edition, 2005

S. Datta, Quantum Transport: Atom to Transistor, Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2 edition, 2005

2005
[40]

A. R. Rocha, V. M. Garc´ ıa-Su´ arez, S. Bailey, C. Lambert, J. Ferrer, S. Sanvito, Spin and molecular electronics in atomically generated or- bital landscapes, Phys. Rev. B 73 (2006) 085414

2006
[41]

A. R. Rocha, V. M. Garc´ ıa-Su´ arez, S. W. Bailey, C. J. Lambert, J. Fer- rer, S. Sanvito, Towards molecular spintronics, Nature materials 4 (2005) 335–339. 16

2005
[42]

Brandbyge, J.-L

M. Brandbyge, J.-L. Mozos, P. Ordej´ on, J. Taylor, K. Stokbro, Density- functional method for nonequilibrium electron transport, Physical Re- view B 65 (2002) 165401

2002
[43]

Y. Xue, S. Datta, M. A. Ratner, First-principles based matrix green’s function approach to molecular electronic devices: general formalism, Chemical Physics 281 (2002) 151 – 170

2002
[44]

Caroli, R

C. Caroli, R. Combescot, P. Nozieres, D. Saint-James, Direct calculation of the tunneling current, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 4 (1971) 916–929

1971
[45]

D. S. Fisher, P. A. Lee, Relation between conductivity and transmission matrix, Phys. Rev. B 23 (1981) 6851–6854

1981
[46]

Okabayashi, M

N. Okabayashi, M. Paulsson, H. Ueba, Y. Konda, T. Komeda, In- elastic tunneling spectroscopy of alkanethiol molecules: High-resolution spectroscopy and theoretical simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 077801

2010
[47]

Paulsson, M

M. Paulsson, M. Brandbyge, Transmission eigenchannels from nonequi- librium green’s functions, Phys. Rev. B 76 (2007) 115117

2007
[48]

L. R. F. Lima, A. Dusko, C. Lewenkopf, Eﬃcient method for computing the electronic transport properties of a multiterminal system, Phys. Rev. B 97 (2018) 165405

2018
[49]

Abrahams, P

E. Abrahams, P. W. Anderson, D. C. Licciardello, T. V. Ramakrish- nan, Scaling theory of localization: Absence of quantum diﬀusion in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 (1979) 673–676. 17

1979

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Liang, J

L. Liang, J. W. Shen, Z. Zhang, Q. Wang, DNA sequencing by two-dimensional materials: As theoretical modeling meets experiments, Biosensors and Bioelectronics 89 (2017) 280–292

work page 2017

[2] [2]

Shendure, S

J. Shendure, S. Balasubramanian, G. M. Church, W. Gilbert, J. Rogers, J. A. Schloss, R. H. Waterston, DNA sequencing at 40: Past, present and future, Nature 550 (2017) 345–353

work page 2017

[3] [3]

W. J. Ansorge, Next-generation DNA sequencing techniques, New Biotechnology 25 (2009) 195–203

work page 2009

[4] [4]

M. L. Metzker, Sequencing technologies the next generation, Nature Reviews Genetics 11 (2010) 31–46

work page 2010

[5] [5]

H. P. J. Buermans, J. T. D. Dunnen, M. L. Metzker, S. Goodwin, J. D. McPherson, W. R. McCombie, S. E. Levy, R. M. Myers, Coming of age: Ten years of next-generation sequencing technologies, Nature Reviews Genetics 17 (2016) 95–115

work page 2016

[6] [6]

Di Ventra, M

M. Di Ventra, M. Taniguchi, Decoding DNA, RNA and peptides with quantum tunnelling, Nature Nanotechnology 11 (2016) 117–126

work page 2016

[7] [8]

S. J. Heerema, C. Dekker, Graphene nanodevices for dna sequencing, Nat Nano 11 (2016) 127 – 136

work page 2016

[8] [9]

Lagerqvist, M

J. Lagerqvist, M. Zwolak, M. Di Ventra, Fast DNA Sequencing via transeverse electronic transport, Nano Lett. 6 (2006) 779–782

work page 2006