Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Charge regulation radically modifies electrostatics in membrane stacks

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Charge-regulating membrane stacks can settle into alternating charges that attract.

desk verdict A solid extension of a two-surface charge-regulation model to stacks, with a real though fixable gap: the numerical minimization is not shown to find global minima. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00217 v2 pith:ZZJDP5VE submitted 2019-08-31 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.stat-mechphysics.bio-phphysics.chem-ph

Arghya Majee , Markus Bier , Ralf Blossey , Rudolf Podgornik This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.stat-mechphysics.bio-phphysics.chem-ph
keywords chargeregulationmembranestackPoisson-BoltzmannsymmetrybreakingsurfacethylakoiddisjoiningpressurevanderWaals
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

The paper argues that a stack of charge-regulating membranes—surfaces whose charge is set by proton (de)adsorption in equilibrium with a bathing salt solution—can settle into an alternating positive/negative charge pattern. In that symmetry-broken state the electrostatic interaction between neighboring membranes is attractive, and for parameters representative of thylakoid stacks this attraction dominates the van der Waals attraction. The authors establish this by minimizing a grand-potential functional over all surface charge densities for stacks of $N$ membranes, and they map out when the alternating state occurs as a function of reaction strength, salt concentration, and membrane separation. If the claim holds, modeling grana formation as fixed-charge surfaces balanced by van der Waals forces is insufficient; the stack's charge state itself must be treated as an equilibrium variable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the grand potential per unit area $\beta\Omega[\sigma^*]$, Eq. (1): a mean-field functional of the surface charge densities $\sigma^*_j$ that combines the Poisson-Boltzmann field energy in the electrolyte with surface terms for proton adsorption, including the adsorption penalty $-\alpha\eta_j$, the in-plane ion-ion interaction $-\chi\eta_j^2/2$, and the entropy of occupied and empty sites. Equilibria are the charge profiles that minimize this functional. The mechanism that produces alternating stacks is a near-cancellation of the $\alpha$ and $\chi$ terms on the line $\chi=-2\alpha$: with those terms balanced, the remaining electrostatic attraction between oppositely charged neighboring surfaces becomes the dominant contribution, selecting patterns of alternating sign. The paper evaluates the outside-region contributions analytically using the known single-surface Poisson-Boltzmann solution and minimizes numerically by nested loops over the potential and a steepest-descent step over the charges.

What would settle it

Run the same minimization from many random initial charge configurations (or an exhaustive grid) for the reported parameters and find a lower grand potential than the steepest-descent result; that would show the alternating state is not the equilibrium. Alternatively, measure the disjoining pressure of a stack of pH-responsive membranes at low salt and small separation: the model predicts an attractive pressure near $-11.3$ bar in the alternating regime, so a measured repulsion there would rule out the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the equilibrium of a stack of charge-regulated membranes is not generally a uniform or symmetric charge profile. For $N\ge 2$ membranes there are regions of the parameter plane (roughly around $\chi=-2\alpha$ with sufficiently negative $\alpha$) where the lowest grand potential belongs to a quasiperiodic sequence of strongly charged surfaces alternating in sign, with mean charge asymmetry $\sigma^*_{mca}\approx 1$. Odd-$N$ stacks in this state carry a small net charge that flips sign as $\chi$ crosses $-2\alpha$, while even-$N$ stacks remain globally neutral but reorganize their pattern, e.g. for $N=4$ from $(-,+,-,-)$ to $(-,+,-,+)$ to $(+,+,-,+)$, to keep the in-plane ion-ion interaction favorable. In the alternating state the disjoining pressure (the force per unit area between the membranes) is attractive; at stack widths much smaller than the Debye length the attraction is $11.3$ bar per surface area, independent of $N$, and for thylakoid parameters it exceeds the van der Waals attraction even for a Hamaker constant one order of magnitude above standard estimates.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the numerical minimization always reaches the true global minimum of the grand potential; if the reported alternating states are metastable local minima rather than equilibrium states, the phase diagrams and the predicted attractions would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At short stack widths $\kappa L\lesssim 4$ and high charge asymmetry, the electrostatic disjoining pressure approaches $-11.3$ bar and is independent of the number of membranes and of the reaction parameters, so adding layers does not dilute the per-area binding.
  • For thylakoid-relevant parameters, the charge-regulation attraction dominates the van der Waals attraction over the full salinity range considered, from a few mM up to 200 mM monovalent salt.
  • The predicted charge patterns are quasiperiodic rather than simply alternating for stacks of three or more membranes: odd-$N$ stacks have a net charge that flips at $\chi=-2\alpha$, while even-$N$ stacks stay neutral and instead reorganize their in-plane proton occupation.
  • Because the charge asymmetry persists up to large $\kappa L$ for parameters on the $\chi=-2\alpha$ line, the electrostatic attraction remains active at salt concentrations and separations far beyond the range where fixed-charge Poisson-Boltzmann interactions would already be screened.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the reported states are the true global minima, then the effective interaction between membranes in a stack is inherently collective: measuring the force between two isolated charge-regulated surfaces would not predict the stack's behavior, because the alternating pattern can only pay off when several surfaces share the charge imbalance.
  • A testable extension would be to expose a stack of pH-responsive surfaces to decreasing salt and watch for an abrupt crossover from repulsive to attractive disjoining pressure at the predicted $\alpha$-$\chi$ boundary; the crossover's position would probe the adsorption parameters directly.
  • The same mechanism may apply beyond biological membranes—for example to multilayered polyelectrolyte films or clay tactoids with dissociable surface groups, where alternating charge states could stabilize multilayer stacking without added multivalent ions.
  • Since the short-separation attraction is independent of $N$, this mechanism offers a reason why grana-like stacks prefer several layers: binding energy per area does not decrease as layers are added, while the collective charge pattern keeps every interface attractive.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a stack of N parallel, charge-regulating membranes in a symmetric monovalent electrolyte. The model is a Poisson-Boltzmann grand potential, Eq. (1), combined with a surface free energy containing adsorption parameters α and χ. By numerically minimizing this functional, the authors compute the mean charge asymmetry σ*_mca (Eq. (2)) in the α–χ plane for several N values, identify symmetry-broken alternating charge patterns, and calculate stack binding energies and disjoining pressures (Fig. 5). They argue that the resulting electrostatic attraction dominates van der Waals forces in thylakoid stacks. The Appendix contains an analytic reduction of the outside-field contributions and a capacitor-limit expression for the short-stack-width disjoining pressure, which is checked against the numerical slope in Fig. 5.

Significance. If the equilibrium-state claims hold, the paper provides a concrete charge-regulation mechanism for attractive forces in membrane stacks: symmetry-broken alternating charge patterns produce an attractive electrostatic pressure whose short-distance asymptote is parameter-free (σ²/(8ε0εr)). This is relevant to thylakoid grana and other biological stacks. The analytic Appendix is a clear strength, and the small-width disjoining-pressure prediction is a falsifiable, parameter-free result that matches the numerics. The phase diagrams for N>2 extend the authors' earlier two-surface work and are not fitted to any target data. The main risks are the lack of a documented global-minimization protocol and the unsupported quantitative comparison with van der Waals forces.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix 2 and Figs. 3–6] The central equilibrium claim requires that the σ* profiles in Figs. 3–6 are global minima of Eq. (1), but the minimization protocol is described only as an outer steepest-descent loop that runs 'until convergence is reached,' with no statement of initial conditions, no multi-start search, and no comparison with other stationary profiles. The functional is not shown to be convex, and the paper itself exhibits several distinct charging patterns for neighboring parameter values (e.g., the sequence (−,+,−,−) → (−,+,−,+) → (+,+,−,+) in Fig. 4), so the iteration could converge to a metastable branch. If so, the phase diagrams, the σ*_mca(L) curves in Fig. 6, and the binding energies in Fig. 5 would not describe the equilibrium stack, and the predicted dominance over van der Waals forces would be unsupported. Please add a multi-start or continuation protocol and identify the global minimum, or explicitly restrict the claims to locally stable states.
  2. [Sec. III, thylakoid paragraph; Conclusions] The statement that the charge-regulation-induced attraction 'dominates quantitatively over the attractive van der Waals force' is asserted but not demonstrated. The only quantitative input is a Hamaker constant A≈4.8×10−20 J; no curve or expression shows how the computed disjoining pressure (the κL≲4 asymptote or the Fig. 5 curves) compares with the van der Waals pressure at the relevant separations. Because this comparison is the basis for the thylakoid conclusion, please include the actual calculation or a graph with both contributions.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract advertises a 'quasiperiodic effective charge sequence,' but the term is never defined in the body and no example of a quasiperiodic sequence is given. The reported patterns are short alternating sequences such as (−,+,−,+) and (+,+,−,+); these are not shown to have any quasiperiodic structure. Please either define and demonstrate the quasiperiodic sequences or revise the abstract to describe the symmetry-broken alternating charge states actually documented in the text.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Fig. 5 discussion] The text says that up to κL≲10 the disjoining pressure is attractive 'for all asymmetrically charged configurations,' but Fig. 5 shows only three parameter sets; please rephrase to refer to the computed cases or provide a systematic scan.
  2. [Sec. II] The parameter θ=2 is introduced as the ratio of neutral sites to fixed charges, but the relation to the allowed interval σ*_j∈[−1/2,1/2] is not explained; a sentence defining the total site density would help.
  3. [Sec. II] The phrase 'non-electrostatic adsorption free energy penalty per ion' for the term −αη_j is confusing when α is negative in the relevant regions; consider calling it a binding or adsorption energy parameter.
  4. [Sec. III, N=2 paragraph] The statement that the N=2 results are in 'perfect agreement' with Ref. [12] is followed by a description of quantitative changes (thinning of the tails); please specify whether the agreement is qualitative or quantitative and, if quantitative, show the comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model is re-derived in the Appendix, the N=2 benchmark is recomputed rather than imported, and the N>2 stack results and disjoining-pressure slope are independent outputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The grand potential Eq. (1) is introduced with a citation to Ref. [12], but the Appendix re-derives the same functional from a mean-field grand potential Eqs. (A1)-(A2), so the model does not reduce to an unverified self-citation. The two-surface symmetry-broken state from Ref. [12] is not assumed; Fig. 2 recomputes it and the comparison is explicitly quantitative ('thinning of the two tails'), not a fit. The N>2 phase diagrams, charge sequences, and binding energies are numerical outputs of this single model with no fitted parameters. The disjoining-pressure slope in Fig. 5 is derived independently from a capacitor estimate (Appendix Sec. 4, -0.273 kBT/nm^3) and then matched to the computed curves, which is a consistency check rather than a prediction obtained by fitting. The only notable concern is numerical: the Appendix's steepest-descent minimization ('The iteration is done until convergence is reached') is not shown to find global minima, so metastable states could in principle affect the reported equilibria. That is a correctness/robustness issue outside the definition of circularity, since it does not make any output equal to an input by construction.

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

The model is mean-field and imports its surface free energy from the authors' prior work. The scan parameters alpha and chi are not fitted to data, but they are also not anchored to measured thylakoid membrane chemistry; the biological conclusion depends on the system lying in the symmetry-broken region.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha = not fitted; scanned (examples: -17.0, -10.4, -7.9)
    Non-electrostatic adsorption free energy per proton in Eq. (1); chosen by hand to explore the model, not fixed by experiment.
  • chi = not fitted; scanned (examples: 34.0, 18.1, 18.4)
    Flory-Huggins in-plane interaction parameter in Eq. (1); chosen by hand.
  • a (surface site spacing) = 1 nm
    Sets the maximum surface charge density 1/(2a^2); chosen as a typical molecular scale; physical pressures scale with a.
  • theta (neutral site ratio) = 2
    Taken from Ref [12]; restricts surface charge to [-1/2, 1/2] in units of e/a^2; other choices would change the accessible charge states.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Mean-field Poisson-Boltzmann theory with point-like ions and no ion-ion correlations describes the electrolyte.
    Used throughout Eq. (1) and Appendix; neglects ion size, correlations, and dielectric images, which may matter at high charge and small separation.
  • domain assumption (De)protonation is the only charge regulation mechanism; (de)phosphorylation is neglected.
    Introduction cites phosphorylation as a second mechanism in thylakoids [21,22], but the model includes only protonation.
  • domain assumption Membranes are infinitesimally thin, laterally uniform sheets.
    Section II: 'negligible thickness [26]'; ignores discrete charge patches and membrane structure.
  • domain assumption The surface free energy with parameters alpha and chi, taken from Ref [12], is the correct description of protonation equilibria.
    The central results are computed from this free energy; no independent experimental calibration is provided.
  • domain assumption The bathing reservoir has the same dielectric permittivity as the inter-membrane space, so there are no image-charge effects.
    The PB equation is solved with constant epsilon across all space; dielectric discontinuities at membranes are neglected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Charge regulation radically modifies electrostatics in membrane stacks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZZJDP5VE

@misc{pith2026190900217,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Charge regulation radically modifies electrostatics in membrane stacks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZZJDP5VE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00217}
}
read the original abstract

Motivated by biological membrane-containing organelles in plants and photosynthetic bacteria, we study charge regulation in a model membrane stack. Considering (de)protonation as the simplest mechanism of charge equilibration between the membranes and with the bathing environment, we uncover a symmetry-broken charge state in the stack with a quasiperiodic effective charge sequence. In the case of a monovalent bathing salt solution our model predicts complex, inhomogeneous charge equilibria depending on the strength of the (de)protonation reaction, salt concentration, intermembrane separation, and their number in the stack. Our results shed light on the basic reorganization mechanism of thylakoid membrane stacks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00217 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Sketch of our system consisting of an array of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Variation of the quantity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Variation of the quantity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Variation of the quantity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Binding energy per cross-sectional area of a stack of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Mean charge asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The remaining term under the integral describes the Coulomb interaction among all charges in the system in a mean-field-like fashion in terms of the electric displacement field D

    The grand potential Treating the ions as point-like particles and ignoring ion-ion correlation within a mean-field formalism, the grand potential corresponding to our system in units of the thermal energyβ = 1/kBT is given by βΩ[η,ϱ± ] = ∫ V d3r [∑ i=± ϱi (r) { ln (ϱi (r) ζi ) − 1 } + βD(r,[ϱ±,η])2 2ε ] + 1 a2 N∑ j=1 [ −αη j− χη2 j 2 +η j lnη j + ( 1−η j )...

    work page

  2. [2]

    In the following, we discuss the behavior ofσ∗ mca for a varying number of surfaces in the stack as well as for varying strengths of the parametersα andχ

    with alternating positive and negative signs. In the following, we discuss the behavior ofσ∗ mca for a varying number of surfaces in the stack as well as for varying strengths of the parametersα andχ. Unless stated otherwise, we consider surfaces with a = 1 nm immersed in an aqueous electrolyte solution (εr≈ 80) at T = 300 K. Please note that for these va...

    work page

  3. [3]

    oscillations

    Forα>α 0, two very thin tails with lower asymmetry betweenσ∗ 1 andσ∗ 2 appear on either side of the lineχ =−2α. Qualitatively, these results are in perfect agreement with Fig. 2(b) of Ref. [12]. The outside regions influence the asymmetric charge regulation only quantitatively, e.g., by giving rise to a thinning of the two tails in Fig. 2 as compared to Fi...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Minimization of the grand potential The integral in the first line of Eq. (A2) can be decomposed in the following way: βΩ [σ∗] =− ε βe2 0∫ −∞ dz [ κ2 (cosh (φ(z))− 1) + 1 2 (φ′(z))2 ] − ε βe2 L∫ 0 dz [ κ2 (cosh (φ(z))− 1) + 1 2 (φ′(z))2 ] − ε βe2 ∞∫ L dz [ κ2 (cosh (φ(z))− 1) + 1 2 (φ′(z))2 ] + 1 a2 N∑ j=1 [ σ∗ jφ j−αη j− χη2 j 2 +η j lnη j + ( 1−η j ) ln ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    When this separation changes, the electrostatic interaction between the surfaces, which is at the origin of the observed charge asymmetry [12], also changes

    Variation of the stack width In the main text, we have shown results for the case of separation κ∆L ≈ 1 between two consecutive surfaces in the stack. When this separation changes, the electrostatic interaction between the surfaces, which is at the origin of the observed charge asymmetry [12], also changes. As a result, for givenα andχ, the charge distrib...

    work page

  6. [6]

    5 increase linearly for very short stack widthsκL ≲ 4

    Disjoining pressure in the small stack width limit As mentioned in the main text, all the three curves in Fig. 5 increase linearly for very short stack widthsκL ≲ 4. At such short separations, electrostatics is almost unscreened and each oppositely and highly charged pair of surfaces (with charge densities|σ|≈ 0.5 e/nm2) inside the stack acts like a capac...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Linderstrøm-Lang, C

    K. Linderstrøm-Lang, C. R. Trav. Lab. Carlsberg 15, 1 (1924)

    work page 1924

  8. [8]

    Kirkwood and J

    J. Kirkwood and J. B. Shumaker, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 38, 855 (1952)

    work page 1952

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    R. A. Marcus, J. Chem. Phys. 23, 1057 (1955)

    1955

  2. [10]

    Lifson, J

    S. Lifson, J. Chem. Phys. 26, 727 (1957)

    1957

  3. [11]

    Lund and B

    M. Lund and B. Jönsson, Quart. Rev. Biophys. 46, 265 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    Adži ´c and R

    N. Adži ´c and R. Podgornik, Phys. Rev. E 91, 022715 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    Podgornik, J

    R. Podgornik, J. Chem. Phys. 149, 104701 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Y . Avni, T. Markovich, R. Podgornik, and D. Andelman, Soft Matter14, 6058 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    A. P. dos Santos and Y . Levin, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 248005 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    B. W. Ninham and V . A. Parsegian, J. Theor. Biol.31, 405 (1971)

    1971

  9. [17]

    Markovich, D

    T. Markovich, D. Andelman, and R. Podgornik, Europhys. Lett. 113, 26004 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Majee, M

    A. Majee, M. Bier, and R. Podgornik, Soft Matter 14, 985 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    A. M. Smith, P. Maroni, and M. Borkovec, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 20, 158 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Markovich, D

    T. Markovich, D. Andelman, and R. Podgornik, in Handbook of Lipid Membranes , Ed. by C. Safinya and J. Rädler (Taylor & Francis, 2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Herrmann, A

    L. Herrmann, A. Johner, and P. Kékiche ff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 268302 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Hishida, Y

    M. Hishida, Y . Nomura, R. Akiyama, Y . Yamamura, and K. Saito, Phys. Rev. E96, 040601(R) (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Barber, FEBS Lett

    J. Barber, FEBS Lett. 118, 1 (1980)

    1980

  16. [24]

    B. T. Rubin and J. Barber, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 592, 87 (1980)

    1980

  17. [25]

    Barber, Ann

    J. Barber, Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 33, 261 (1982)

    1982

  18. [26]

    Puthiyaveetil, B

    S. Puthiyaveetil, B. van Oort, and H. Kirchho ff, Nat. Plants 3, 17020 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    J. F. Allen, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1098, 275 (1992)

    1992

  20. [28]

    Ka ˇna and Govindjee, Front

    R. Ka ˇna and Govindjee, Front. Plant Sci. 7, 1849 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Mustárdy, K

    L. Mustárdy, K. Buttle, G. Steinbach, and G. Garab, Plant Cell 20, 2552 (2008)

    2008

  22. [30]

    Kirchhoff, C

    H. Kirchhoff, C. Hall, M. Wood, M. Herbstová, O. Tsabari, R. Nevo, D. Charuvi, E. Shimoni, and Z. Reich, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20248 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    Kirchho ff, Plant Sci

    H. Kirchho ff, Plant Sci. 266, 76 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    The underpinnings and limitations of this approximation are discussed in Ref. [14]

  25. [33]

    Harries, R

    D. Harries, R. Podgornik, V . A. Parsegian, E. Mar-Or, and D. Andelman, J. Chem. Phys.124, 224702 (2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    Tagliazucchi, M

    M. Tagliazucchi, M. O. de la Cruz, and I. Szleifer, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 5300 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    W. B. Russell, D. A. Saville, and W. R. Schowalter,Colloidal Dispersions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989)

    1989

  28. [36]

    P. J. Basser and A. J. Grodzinsky, Biophys. Chem. 46, 57 (1993)

    1993

  29. [37]

    M. J. Sculley, J. T. Duniec, S. W. Thorne, W. S. Chow, and N. K. Boardman, Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 201, 339 (1980)

    1980

  30. [38]

    J. A. Cruz, C. A. Sacksteder, A. Kanazawa, and D. M. Kramer, Biochem. 40, 1226 (2001)

    2001

  31. [39]

    Philippar and J

    K. Philippar and J. Soll, Intracellular transport: solute transport in chloroplast, mitochondria, peroxi- 15 somes and vacuoles, and between organelles. In: Plant Solute Transport , Ed. by A. R. Yeo and T. J. Flowers (Blackwell Publishing, pp. 133-193, 2007)

    2007

  32. [40]

    Podgornik, R

    R. Podgornik, R. H. French, and V . A. Parsegian, J. Chem. Phys. 124, 044709 (2006)

    2006

  33. [41]

    Barber, Biochim

    J. Barber, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 594, 253 (1980)

    1980

  34. [42]

    Stingaciu, H

    L.-R. Stingaciu, H. O’Neill, M. Liberton, V . S. Urban, H. B. Pakrasi, and M. Ohl, Sci. Rep.6, 19627 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    A. M. L. van de Meene, W. P. Sharp, J. H. McDaniel, H. Friedrich, W. F. J. Vermaas, and R. W. Roberson, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1818, 1427 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    F. J. van Eerden, D. H. de Jong, A. H. de Vries, T. A. Wassenaar, and S. J. Marrink, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1848, 1319 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    R. J. Hunter, F oundations of colloid science(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989). 16

    1989

Pith tools

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