Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Threading-Induced Dynamical Transition in Tadpole-Shaped Polymers

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 Tadpole-shaped polymers—a ring head fused to a linear tail—can form a percolating network of tail-through-head threadings that slows center-of-mass diffusion far more than ring-linear blends, with data suggesting an exponential decay of…

desk verdict First entangled MD study of tadpole polymers, with a plausible threading-driven slowdown; the central causal control has a compression confound that should be fixed before the 'unambiguous' claim stands. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06638 v2 pith:YXOJYQ53 submitted 2019-08-19 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Angelo Rosa , Jan Smrek , Matthew S Turner , Davide Michieletto This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords tadpole-shapedpolymerschimericthreadingpolymerdynamicstopologicalconstraintsmolecularsimulationring-linearblendsminimalsurfaces
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 tadpole-shaped polymers—a ring head fused to a linear tail—can enter a slow dynamical state that is qualitatively different from anything seen in linear chains, pure rings, or ring-linear blends. Using molecular dynamics simulations, the authors show that when the head is large enough, tails thread through the heads of neighboring tadpoles in numbers large enough to form a system-spanning, percolating network. These collective threadings slow center-of-mass diffusion far more than reptation predicts, with the data suggesting an exponential decay of the diffusion coefficient with tail length in the asymptotic regime. The result matters because it implies that polymer architecture alone—without longer chains—can tune bulk rheology over a dynamical range roughly two orders of magnitude wider than linear chains of the same mass.

What carries the argument

The central object is the inter-tadpole threading: the piercing of a tadpole's head—represented by its minimal spanning surface—by the tail of another tadpole. The machinery is a set of computational tools: minimal-surface detection of threadings, a time-dependent threading matrix $T_{ij}(t)$, a threading lifetime distribution $\Theta(t)$ mapped to first-return times of a 1D Brownian walk, and a two-time correlator $\chi(t)$ whose stretched-exponential relaxation is modeled as a polydisperse polymer melt with a uniform threading-length distribution. The percolation criterion $l_c/L = 1/\langle\phi\rangle$ ties the mean number of threadings per head to the onset of the slow state, and a semi-phantom control simulation isolates the causal role of threadings.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to suppress threadings without changing density or entanglement—for instance, by using heads too small to admit tails, or by a phantom head–tail interaction without volume compression—and check whether the slowdown disappears. Alternatively, if the claimed exponential decay of the diffusion coefficient with tail length is correct, extending the simulations or experiments to larger tail lengths should make the diffusion coefficient fall below any power-law fit; observing a persistent power law at large tail lengths would falsify the transition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that tadpole polymers with sufficiently large heads (about 250 to 400 monomers) and long tails relax through a hierarchy of inter-tadpole threadings, in which a tail pierces the minimal surface spanned by another tadpole's head. These threadings are numerous enough to percolate, with an average of more than one threading per head, and their relaxation controls the long-time dynamics. The threading lifetime distribution matches the first-return statistics of a one-dimensional Brownian walker on the tail, and the two-time threading correlator decays as a stretched exponential with an exponent that follows from a uniform distribution of threading lengths. The characteristic threading relaxation time grows linearly with the mean number of threadings, implying that constraints are released serially. A control simulation with head–tail steric interactions removed speeds up diffusion 14-fold, which the authors present as unambiguous evidence that threadings—not ordinary entanglements—cause the slowdown.

Load-bearing premise

The attribution of the 14-fold slowdown to threadings rests on a control simulation in which head–tail steric interactions are turned off and the system is compressed two-fold to restore the effective monomer density; the assumption is that this compression leaves head–head and tail–tail entanglements and constraint release unchanged.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tadpole polymers with large heads ($C \ge 250$) and long tails can be roughly two orders of magnitude slower than linear chains of the same total mass, a dynamical range not achievable in ring-linear blends.
  • The diffusion coefficient decays exponentially with tail length for large heads, in contrast to the power-law reptation scaling of linear chains.
  • Threading relaxation maps onto the relaxation of a polydisperse polymer melt whose threading lengths are uniformly distributed, giving a stretched-exponential stress relaxation with an exponent that decreases as tails grow.
  • The relaxation time of the threading network grows linearly with the mean number of threadings per head, indicating serial release of constraints before free diffusion resumes.
  • Because threadings percolate, the slowdown is a collective, system-wide effect rather than the sum of independent single-threading events.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same threading mechanism should generalize to other chimeric architectures—barbells, combs, or multi-loop designs—and could allow even finer rheological tuning by varying the number and size of loops; the paper frames this possibility but does not test it.
  • The predicted exponential divergence of the threading relaxation time with tail length suggests the possibility of a dynamic arrest or topological glass transition at modest lengths, an extrapolation beyond the simulated sizes.
  • The uniform distribution of threading lengths implies a flat stress relaxation spectrum over a wide timescale range, a prediction that could be tested directly in rheological measurements on tadpole melts.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports molecular dynamics simulations of melts of tadpole-shaped polymers composed of a ring 'head' (C monomers) and a linear 'tail' (L monomers) at monomer density ρ=0.1σ^-3. The central claim is a threading-induced dynamical transition: for small heads (C=100) the centre-of-mass diffusion coefficient follows a reptation-like power law with tail length, while for C=250 and C=400 the decay with L is qualitatively faster and compatible with an exponential. Threadings are detected using minimal surfaces, and the authors characterize their return-time distribution, a two-time threading correlation function, and the average number of threadings per head. A semi-phantom control with head-tail steric interactions removed and the system compressed 2-fold in volume shows a 14-fold faster diffusion, which is interpreted as unambiguous evidence for the threading mechanism. The authors conclude that system-spanning, percolating threadings in tadpoles produce a much broader dynamical range than linear chains or ring-linear blends.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper demonstrates a new mechanism for a dramatic, design-controlled dynamical slowdown in entangled polymers, with implications for the rheology of chimeric and topologically functionalized polymers. The work has notable strengths: the minimal-surface definition of threadings, the quantitative mapping of threading return times to Brownian first-passage statistics, the direct comparison with experiments, and the semi-phantom control as a conceptual strategy for isolating threadings. However, as detailed below, the evidence for the asymptotic 'transition' and the causal attribution to threadings is not yet fully established, because the transition claim rests on few tail lengths with one unconverged point and because the semi-phantom control changes density simultaneously with the removal of head-tail interactions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Tadpole Microrheology (Figs. 2B-2D)] The central claim of a dynamical transition from power-law to exponential decay of D rests on only three tail lengths (L=100, 250, 400) for each head size, and the data point that most strongly supports the exponential behavior, D(C=400,L=400), is explicitly an upper bound because the system had not reached free diffusion within the simulation time. Distinguishing power-law from exponential behavior using three points, one of which is not converged, is not sufficient to establish a change in asymptotic scaling. Please provide additional tail lengths and, for the slowest systems, longer trajectories or a finite-size extrapolation to a converged diffusion coefficient.
  2. [Threading Statistics (Fig. 4D)] The semi-phantom control removes head-tail steric interactions and compresses the system 2-fold in volume, which changes the total monomer density from 0.1σ^-3 to 0.2σ^-3 and doubles the tail-monomer density. These changes can independently alter the entanglement spacing and constraint-release dynamics. The manuscript asserts, but does not verify, that all non-threading physics is preserved under this compression. Without such a test, the 14-fold increase in D cannot be unambiguously attributed solely to the removal of threadings, and the word 'unambiguous' in the Conclusions is too strong. Please add a control that verifies matching non-threading properties, for example by measuring Ne or the dynamics of the head and tail subsystems at the same effective density, or by devising a control that does not require a simultaneous density change.
  3. [Threading Statistics (Fig. 4A and the χ(t) model)] The statement that the threading relaxation time T(l)=τ0 l^δ diverges more strongly than exponentially for large heads is obtained by fitting δ(L) and τ0 to the simulated χ(t) curves. The statement that 'this implies T(l) diverges...' is therefore a restatement of the fit rather than an independent prediction. To make the argument non-circular, please provide a microscopic mechanism that predicts δ(L), or extract δ(L) from an independent observable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The definition of Θ(t) as a conditional probability is terse; please state explicitly that it counts threadings with lifetime exactly t (survival up to t−1 followed by failure at t) and specify how the histogram is normalized.
  2. [Fig. 2D caption] Please specify the exponent of the dashed line for the asymptotic ring and linear chain scalings, and state whether the length axes are in beads or in units of Ne.
  3. [Fig. 3C and the stretched-exponential model] The text reports stretched-exponential exponents γ from direct fits to χ(t) and later describes a numerical integral with τ0 and δ; please clarify whether the quoted γ values are independent of the model or were obtained using the fitted τ0 and δ, and how the two procedures relate.
  4. [Fig. 4C caption] There is a typo in the caption: 'proprtional' should be 'proportional'.
  5. [Fig. 4D legend] The legend should state explicitly the monomer density and interaction model used for the semi-phantom system, since the 2-fold compression is a crucial detail for interpreting the comparison.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Fitted threading-relaxation exponent is presented as a super-exponential divergence, but the central dynamical transition is independently observed.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Threading Statistics section, around Eq. for chi(t) and Fig. 4A]
    "Thus, to compute their relaxation we must calculate χ(t) = (1/L)∫L0 e−t/T(l)dl, where T (l) = τ0lδ now depends on the threading length l through a generic exponent δ. This function can be computed numerically as a function of τ0 and δ for different choices of C and L. As expected, we find that τ0 is overall independent of either C or L (see SI); on the other hand, we find that δ ... increases as a power law of L for small heads and exponentially in L for large heads (Fig. 4A). This implies that T (l) diverges even more strongly than an exponential in the asymptotic limit of large tadpoles."

    The model chi(t) = (1/L)∫ e^{-t/T(l)}dl with T(l) = τ0 l^δ is fitted to the simulated chi(t), using τ0 and δ as free parameters. The claim that 'T(l) diverges even more strongly than an exponential' is therefore a restatement of the fitted growth of δ with L, not an independent prediction from first principles. Presenting this fitted trend as evidence for a threading-induced dynamical transition makes the asymptotic divergence claim statistically forced by the fit. However, this step is supporting rather than the central result: the D(L) transition and the semi-phantom comparison do not reduce to this fit.

full rationale

The central dynamical transition is a direct simulation observation: the measured centre-of-mass diffusion coefficient D(L) changes from a power-law decay for small heads to a much stronger, apparently exponential decay for large heads (Fig. 2B), and this does not depend on any fitted theoretical model. The return-time scaling Θ(t) ~ t^{α/2−2} is a genuine consistency check, because α is measured from direct tracking of the piercing segment, a different observable from the fitted β, and the resulting prediction [1.7,1.8] agrees with the fitted β = 1.74 ± 0.02. The semi-phantom control, despite its 2-fold compression confound, is a deletion experiment rather than a circular reduction: it removes head-tail steric interactions and observes a 14-fold speedup, so the causal attribution may be imperfect but is not definitionally forced. The one genuine circularity concern is confined to the χ(t) analysis: τ0 and δ are free parameters fitted to the simulated χ(t), and the conclusion that the threading relaxation time diverges more strongly than exponentially is a restatement of the fitted δ(L) trend. This is a partial, supporting circularity, not a collapse of the paper's central derivation, so the score is moderate rather than high. The compression issue in the semi-phantom control is a correctness/control concern, not a circularity, and is not scored here.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard coarse-grained polymer model with chosen density and persistence length, on a geometric definition of threadings via minimal surfaces, and on the identifying assumption that the semi-phantom control isolates threading effects. The fitted parameters τ0 and δ are the only quantities tuned to the target dynamics; the remaining inputs are standard model choices and prior literature values.

free parameters (4)
  • persistence length lp = 5σ
    Chosen model parameter (Kratky-Porod) that sets the entanglement length Ne≈40; the range of tail lengths from 100 to 400 reaches L up to 10Ne, putting the system in the entangled regime the claim requires.
  • monomer density ρ = 0.1 σ^-3
    Chosen to be about 10 times the overlap concentration; together with lp it determines Ne and the level of entanglement.
  • threading relaxation prefactor τ0 = not reported numerically (SI)
    Fit parameter in T(l)=τ0 l^δ used to reproduce χ(t); the paper states it is independent of C and L, but it is still tuned to simulation data.
  • threading relaxation exponent δ(L) = δ~L^0.40 for C=100; δ~e^{L/L1} with L1=367(13) for C≥250
    Fitted to χ(t) for each (C,L) and then used to argue that the slowest threading relaxation diverges more strongly than exponential for large heads, supporting the claimed transition.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Entanglement length of the model linear melt at ρ=0.1σ^-3 and lp=5σ is Ne≈40 beads, taken from prior simulations.
    Invoked to state that the system is entangled and to define N/Ne; not independently re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption A minimal surface spanning each ring head, found by Surface Evolver, correctly identifies topological threadings; self-threadings are excluded as ill-defined.
    All threading statistics depend on this geometric definition; excluding self-threadings could bias the network if they matter.
  • ad hoc to paper In the semi-phantom control, removing head-tail steric interactions and compressing 2-fold leaves the effective dynamics otherwise equivalent to the full system.
    This is the identifying assumption of the key control; if false, the causal attribution of the 14-fold speedup to threadings fails.
  • domain assumption The piercing point of a tail through a head-spanning surface performs Rouse-like motion with anomalous exponent α in [0.4,0.6], so first-return times scale as t^{α/2-2}.
    Used to predict the Θ(t) exponent β≈1.7-1.8; α is measured by direct tracking, but the first-return mapping itself is a modeling step.
  • domain assumption Threading lengths, the portion of tail from the piercing point to the tail end, are uniformly distributed P(l)~1/L in the sampled steady state.
    Used to compute χ(t)=(1/L)∫e^{-t/T(l)}dl; though observed in Fig. 3D, it is treated as an input for the relaxation model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Threading-Induced Dynamical Transition in Tadpole-Shaped Polymers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YXOJYQ53

@misc{pith2026190806638,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Threading-Induced Dynamical Transition in Tadpole-Shaped Polymers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YXOJYQ53}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06638}
}
read the original abstract

The relationship between polymer topology and bulk rheology remains a key question in soft matter physics. Architecture-specific constraints (or threadings) are thought to control the dynamics of ring polymers in ring-linear blends, which thus affects the viscosity to range between that of the pure rings and a value larger, but still comparable to, that of the pure linear melt. Here we consider qualitatively different systems of linear and ring polymers, fused together in "chimeric" architectures. The simplest example of this family is a "tadpole"-shaped polymer - a single ring fused to the end of a single linear chain. We show that polymers with this architecture display a threading-induced dynamical transition that substantially slows chain relaxation. Our findings shed light on how threadings control dynamics and may inform design principles for chimeric polymers with topologically-tunable bulk rheological properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06638 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: B and indeed it shows that for small heads the number of threadings is saturated at modest tail lengths; on the other hand, larger heads can accommodate up to 5 threadings, on average, and often each threading is made by more than one piercing (see SI). Importantly, th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Doi and S

    M. Doi and S. F. Edwards, The Theory of Polymer Dy- namics (Oxford University Press, New York, 1986)

    1986

  2. [2]

    De Gennes, Scaling Concepts in Polymer Physics (Cornell University Press, 1979)

    P.-G. De Gennes, Scaling Concepts in Polymer Physics (Cornell University Press, 1979)

    work page 1979

  3. [3]

    S. F. Edwards, Proc. Phys. Soc. 91, 513 (1967)

    work page 1967

  4. [4]

    Roovers, Macromolecules 21, 1517 (1988)

    J. Roovers, Macromolecules 21, 1517 (1988)

    work page 1988

  5. [5]

    D. J. Klein, Macromolecules 118, 105 (1986)

    work page 1986

  6. [6]

    Cates and J

    M. Cates and J. Deutsch, Journal de Physique 47, 2121 (1986)

    work page 1986

  7. [7]

    Rubinstein, Phys

    M. Rubinstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 3023 (1986)

    work page 1986

  8. [8]

    M¨ uller, J

    M. M¨ uller, J. P. Wittmer, and M. E. Cates, Phys. Rev. E 61, 4078 (2000)

    work page 2000

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    McLeish, Science 297, 2005 (2002)

    T. McLeish, Science 297, 2005 (2002)

    2002

  2. [10]

    Ferrari, Ann

    F. Ferrari, Ann. Phys. (Berl.) 11, 255 (2002)

    2002

  3. [11]

    Kapnistos, M

    M. Kapnistos, M. Lang, D. Vlassopoulos, W. Pyckhout- Hintzen, D. Richter, D. Cho, T. Chang, and M. Rubin- stein, Nat. Mater. 7, 997 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    J. D. Halverson, W. B. Lee, G. S. Grest, A. Y. Grosberg, and K. Kremer, J. Chem. Phys. 134, 204904 (2011)

    2011

  5. [13]

    J. D. Halverson, W. B. Lee, G. S. Grest, A. Y. Grosberg, and K. Kremer, J. Chem. Phys. 134, 204905 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    Sakaue, Phys

    T. Sakaue, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 167802 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    Rosa and R

    A. Rosa and R. Everaers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 118302 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    Vlassopoulos, Rheol

    D. Vlassopoulos, Rheol. Acta 55, 613 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    T. Ge, S. Panyukov, and M. Rubinstein, Macromolecules 49, 708 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Michieletto, Soft Matter 12, 9485 (2016)

    D. Michieletto, Soft Matter 12, 9485 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Sakaue, Soft Matter 14, 7507 (2018)

    T. Sakaue, Soft Matter 14, 7507 (2018). 6

    2018

  12. [20]

    R. D. Schram, A. Rosa, and R. Everaers, Soft Matter 15, 2418 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Smrek, K

    J. Smrek, K. Kremer, and A. Rosa, ACS Macro Lett. 8, 155 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    B. W. Soh, A. R. Klotz, R. M. Robertson-Anderson, and P. S. Doyle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 048002 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Y. Doi, K. Matsubara, Y. Ohta, T. Nakano, D. Kawaguchi, Y. Takahashi, A. Takano, and Y. Mat- sushita, Macromolecules 48, 3140 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    R. M. Robertson and D. E. Smith, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 4824 (2007)

    2007

  17. [25]

    C. D. Chapman, S. Shanbhag, D. E. Smith, and R. M. Robertson, Soft Matter 8, 9177 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    J. D. Halverson, G. S. Grest, A. Y. Grosberg, and K. Kremer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 038301 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    Y. Zhou, K. W. Hsiao, K. E. Regan, D. Kong, G. B. McKenna, R. M. Robertson-Anderson, and C. M. Schroeder, Nat. Commun. 10, 1 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    Michieletto, D

    D. Michieletto, D. Marenduzzo, E. Orlandini, G. P. Alexander, and M. S. Turner, ACS Macro Lett. 3, 255 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    E. Lee, S. Kim, and Y. Jung, Macromol. Rapid Commun. 36, 1115 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    D. G. Tsalikis, V. G. Mavrantzas, and D. Vlassopoulos, ACS Macro Lett. , 755 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    Smrek and A

    J. Smrek and A. Y. Grosberg, ACS Macro Lett. 5, 750 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Lo and M

    W.-C. Lo and M. S. Turner, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 102, 58005 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    Michieletto and M

    D. Michieletto and M. S. Turner, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 5195 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Michieletto, N

    D. Michieletto, N. Nahali, and A. Rosa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 1 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Michieletto, D

    D. Michieletto, D. Marenduzzo, E. Orlandini, and M. S. Turner, Polymers 9, 1 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Smrek, I

    J. Smrek, I. Chubak, C. N. Likos, and K. Kremer, Nat. Commun. 11, 26 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    P. J. Mills, J. W. Mayer, E. J. Kramer, G. Hadziioannou, P. Lutz, C. Strazielle, P. Rempp, and A. J. Kovacs, Macromolecules 20, 513 (1987)

    1987

  30. [38]

    S. F. Tead, E. J. Kramer, G. Hadziioannou, M. An- tonietti, H. Sillescu, P. Lutz, and C. Strazielle, Macro- molecules 25, 3942 (1992)

    1992

  31. [39]

    Parisi, J

    D. Parisi, J. Ahn, T. Chang, D. Vlassopoulos, and M. Rubinstein, Macromolecules 53, 1685 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Tezuka and H

    Y. Tezuka and H. Oike, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 123, 11570 (2001)

    2001

  33. [41]

    Suzuki, T

    T. Suzuki, T. Yamamoto, and Y. Tezuka, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 136, 10148 (2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    Tomikawa, T

    Y. Tomikawa, T. Yamamoto, and Y. Tezuka, Macro- molecules 49, 4076 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    Y. Doi, A. Takano, Y. Takahashi, and Y. Matsushita, Macromolecules 48, 8667 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    Polymeropoulos, P

    G. Polymeropoulos, P. Bilalis, X. Feng, E. L. Thomas, Y. Gnanou, and N. Hadjichristidis, Macromolecules 52, 5583 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Niemyska, P

    W. Niemyska, P. Dabrowski-Tumanski, M. Kadlof, E. Haglund, P. Sulkowski, and J. I. Sulkowska, Sci. Rep. 6, 1 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    Dabrowski-Tumanski, W

    P. Dabrowski-Tumanski, W. Niemyska, P. Pasznik, and J. I. Sulkowska, Nucleic Acids Res. 44, W383 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Uehara and T

    E. Uehara and T. Deguchi, J. Chem. Phys. 145, 164905 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    Keesman, G

    R. Keesman, G. T. Barkema, and D. Panja, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. 2013, P02021 (2013)

    2013

  41. [49]

    Kremer and G

    K. Kremer and G. S. Grest, J. Chem. Phys. 92, 5057 (1990)

    1990

  42. [50]

    Everaers, S

    R. Everaers, S. K. Sukumaran, G. S. Grest, C. Svaneborg, A. Sivasubramanian, and K. Kremer, Science 303, 823 (2004)

    2004

  43. [51]

    Plimpton, J

    S. Plimpton, J. Comp. Phys. 117, 1 (1995)

    1995

  44. [52]

    J. D. Halverson, K. Kremer, and A. Y. Grosberg, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 46, 065002 (2013)

    2013

  45. [53]

    Lang, Macromolecules 46, 1158 (2013)

    M. Lang, Macromolecules 46, 1158 (2013)

    2013

  46. [54]

    K. A. Brakke, Exp. Math. 1, 141 (1992)

    1992

  47. [55]

    G. M. Molchan, Commun. Math. Phys. 205, 97 (1999)

    1999

  48. [56]

    J.-H. Jeon, A. V. Chechkin, and R. Metzler, in First- Passage Phenomena and Their Applications , edited by R. Metzler, G. Oshanin, and S. Redner (World Scientific, Singapore, 2014) Chap. 8, pp. 175–202

    2014

  49. [57]

    De Gennes, Macromolecules 35, 3785 (2002)

    P.-G. De Gennes, Macromolecules 35, 3785 (2002)

    2002

  50. [58]

    M. E. Cates, Macromolecules 20, 2289 (1987)

    1987

Pith tools

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