Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 51 references

Self-assembly of a dimer system

T0 review · 2 major / 3 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 A finite dimer-gas partition function shows that fully correct dimerization is limited by the product of monomer diversity and volume, not by number density.

desk verdict The finite-N partition function and NV-product criterion are new and the theory is solid, but the Sec. VI biophysical classification flips one of its own inequalities when the paper's stated per-copy volume rescaling is applied. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00455 v2 pith:EJUPQR4L submitted 2019-09-01 physics.bio-ph cond-mat.stat-mechq-bio.BM

Mobolaji Williams This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-phcond-mat.stat-mechq-bio.BM
keywords dimerself-assemblystatisticalmechanicspartitionfunctionDanceHallProblemsearch-limitedcombinatorics-limitedbindingspecificitytranscriptionfactorDNA
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 asks when a set of distinct monomers will spontaneously assemble into all-correct dimers. It models a system of $2N$ distinguishable monomers in a volume $V$, where correct pairs bind with extra energy $\Delta$ and incorrect pairs bind with energy $E_0$, and solves the resulting counting problem exactly. The two necessary conditions for fully correct dimerization are $2N < e^{\beta\Delta}$ and $NV < \sqrt{2}\,\lambda_0^3 e^{\beta(E_0+\Delta)}$. The consequence is that diversity and volume, not density, set the limit. With biophysical estimates, the paper finds that ssDNA, transcription-factor–DNA, and protein–protein systems all fall in the search-limited regime—limited by monomers finding one another—where partial assembly can be dominated by correct contacts.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the "Dance Hall Problem": counting the number of ways that $N$ original pairs can remix so that exactly $k$ pairs form and exactly $m$ of them are original pairs. The count $\Omega_N(k,m)=\binom{N}{m}a_{N-m,k-m}$, with $a_{n,\ell}$ obtained by inclusion–exclusion, converts the microstate sum into an exact double-integral partition function (Eq. 15). Laplace's method on that integral yields the equilibrium conditions (Eqs. 27–28), from which the critical temperature, the two system types, and the inequalities in Eq. (2) follow.

What would settle it

Compare two systems with identical number density but different diversity–volume products—for instance $N=100$ species in $1\,\mu\mathrm{m}^3$ versus $N=1000$ species in $10\,\mu\mathrm{m}^3$, with the same effective $E_0$ and $\Delta$. The model predicts that the first can satisfy the search condition while the second cannot; if both show identical fully correct dimerization behavior, the $NV$ product constraint is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a dimer system of $2N$ distinct single-copy monomers can reach fully correct dimerization only when both the combinatorial advantage of correct contacts and the search required to bring partners together are satisfied: $2N < e^{\beta\Delta}$ and $NV < \sqrt{2}\lambda_0^3 e^{\beta(E_0+\Delta)}$. These conditions are necessary but not sufficient. The inequality $2N < e^{\beta\Delta}$ is the combinatorics-limiting condition, while $NV < \sqrt{2}\lambda_0^3 e^{\beta(E_0+\Delta)}$ is the search-limiting condition. Systems whose critical temperature is set by the search condition are Type I (search-limited); systems set by the combinatorics condition are Type II (combinatorics-limited). Applying effective binding energies estimated from measured association constants and free energies, the paper concludes that ssDNA dimerization, transcription-factor–DNA binding, and protein–protein dimerization are all Type I, search-limited systems at physiological temperature and cellular volumes.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on treating a real biomolecular system as a volume that holds one copy of each distinct monomer, with monomers as featureless non-interacting particles, and on converting measured binding free energies into two effective energies by subtracting the estimated entropy cost of binding.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fully correct dimerization is a finite-size effect: both necessary conditions cannot be satisfied in the combined thermodynamic limit, so the regime disappears as $N\to\infty$ with $V\to\infty$.
  • In search-limited systems, partially dimerized states can be dominated by correct contacts; in combinatorics-limited systems, partial dimerization is dominated by incorrect contacts.
  • For the three biomolecular systems considered, the binding parameters are already strong enough to overcome the combinatorial disadvantage of incorrect contacts at physiological temperature.
  • The search limit constrains $NV$, so doubling the number of distinct monomers is as harmful as doubling the volume for fixed binding energies.
  • Equation (49) gives a necessary condition for a system to be Type I, fixing a maximum monomer diversity for search-limited behavior at given binding energies and volume.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $NV$ product is the true control parameter, reducing the effective search volume (for example by compartmentalizing a reaction) should push a fixed set of monomers toward fully correct assembly without changing any binding energy; this is a testable design rule for synthetic self-assembly.
  • The paper's qualitative observation that kinetic trapping is most prevalent in combinatorics-limited systems suggests the Type I/Type II distinction may also predict assembly kinetics, not just equilibrium behavior.
  • For real cells with multiple copies per species, the paper's local single-copy argument implies the relevant "diversity" is the number of distinct species in a local sub-volume, so the product constraint becomes scale-dependent and could be tested by comparing small and large compartments with the same density.
  • The exponential dependence in the combinatorics condition means that even a modest increase in binding specificity $\Delta$ exponentially increases the number of distinct monomer species that can assemble correctly; designing for specificity may therefore be more powerful than changing concentration.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces an exactly solvable statistical-mechanics model in which 2N distinguishable monomers in volume V can form N "correct" dimers with binding energy -(E0+Δ) and 2N(N-1) "incorrect" dimers with binding energy -E0. The partition function is reduced to a double integral, equilibrium conditions for the average number of dimers ⟨k⟩ and correct dimers ⟨m⟩ are obtained by Laplace's method, and two necessary conditions for fully correct dimerization are derived: 2N<e^{βΔ} and NV<√2 λ0^3 e^{β(E0+Δ)} (with gendered analogs in the appendix). Systems are classified as Type I ("search-limited") or Type II ("combinatorics-limited"), and the inequalities are applied to ssDNA, TF-DNA, and protein-protein interactions, leading to the conclusion that all three are search-limited. The theoretical results are checked by Monte Carlo simulation, and code is provided.

Significance. The exact combinatorial enumeration, the transparent Laplace-method derivation, and the Monte Carlo validation of the equilibrium conditions are genuine strengths. The central theoretical result, that the search constraint is on the product NV rather than on density, is a clean and falsifiable prediction of the model and is shown to be internally consistent. The biophysical application is the fragile part: the classification in Table I depends on identifying the model's E0 and Δ with measured binding free energies after an uncontrolled entropy subtraction, and on using the whole-cell volume despite the single-copy premise of the partition function. These issues can be addressed by re-evaluating Table I with the manuscript's own V/c heuristic or by re-scoping the biological claim, so the correct disposition is major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. VI and Table I; Sec. VIII] The search-limited classification of TF-DNA and protein-protein systems uses V equal to the whole E. coli volume (1 μm^3), but the partition function of Sec. II A assumes exactly one copy of each monomer species. Sec. VIII explicitly states that when each species has c uniformly distributed copies, the single-copy model should be applied to a volume V/c. Applying this rule to E. coli (≈4×10^6 proteins, N≈10^3 species for proteins, c≈10^2–10^3 for TFs) gives effective volumes V_eff=V/c. For proteins, N V_eff≈0.25 μm^3, which is below the threshold 0.47 μm^3 in Eq. (46), rather than above it; for TF-DNA, N V_eff straddles the Eq. (A28) threshold of 2.7 μm^3 depending on copy number. The Table I classification therefore is not a consequence of the model applied consistently; it follows from using the whole-cell volume. The authors should either evaluate the inequalities at V/c, provide a multi-copy version of the theory, or explicitly re-scope the biological conclusion.
  2. [Sec. VI preamble; Table I] The mapping from measured binding free energies to E0 and Δ is not quantitatively controlled. The paper states that E0 and E0+Δ are approximated by binding free energies minus an estimated translational entropy, but no error analysis of this subtraction is given. The thresholds in Eq. (46) and Eq. (A28) depend exponentially on E0+Δ: at T=310 K, an uncertainty of a few kcal/mol changes the right-hand side by orders of magnitude. Since the Table I conclusion "search-limited" is based on the numerical margin between NV and the threshold (a factor ~10^2–10^3), an uncontrolled few-kcal/mol error can flip the classification. A sensitivity analysis or at least reported uncertainties is needed before the biological conclusion is stated.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. VI A and Eq. (49)] The statement that taking E0→0 in Eq. (49) gives 2N<exp(Δ/2E0) is not the correct limit of the expression as written; expanding W0(z)≈z for small z gives exp(Δ/(2EV)), because the E0 in the prefactor cancels with the W0 argument. The astronomical upper bound for ssDNA may survive, but the displayed formula should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. VII] The text says the work has "five main analytical results" but then lists six items (Eq. (15), Eq. (27)–(28), Eq. (40), Eq. (45), Eq. (46)–(47), Eq. (49)); the count should be adjusted.
  3. [Table I caption and Sec. VI A] The fourth column mixes a combinatorial maximum (ssDNA, 4^20 possible sequences) with cellular estimates (TF-DNA and protein-protein in E. coli); the caption should distinguish "maximum possible diversity" from "estimated real diversity" more clearly, and "20-base pair ssDNA" should read "20-base ssDNA."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dimer-assembly inequalities are derived from an exact partition function with external parameters, and the biophysical classification is an application of those inequalities.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The partition function is built from explicit combinatorial counting (Eqs. (9), (10), (14), (15)) with E0, Δ, N, and V as external inputs; the equilibrium conditions (Eqs. (27) and (28)) follow from Laplace's method applied to that partition function; and the fully-correct-dimerization condition (Eq. (40)) plus the necessary inequalities (Eqs. (46) and (47)) are algebraic rearrangements of the derived temperature scales TI and TII. No parameter is fitted to the target conclusion that the relevant constraint is NV rather than number density. The biophysical section uses literature-derived binding free energies, masses, and copy-number estimates as inputs to evaluate those inequalities, so the search-limited classification of ssDNA, TF-DNA, and protein-protein systems is an application of the model's output rather than a restatement of its inputs. The paper's own acknowledgment that real systems have multiple copies (Sec. VI preamble and Sec. VIII) and the possible sensitivity of the classification to volume-per-copy is a modeling-applicability concern, not circularity: using V = 1 μm3 versus V/c changes which inequality is violated, but it does not make the inequalities equivalent to the conclusion. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior work by the same author. The Type I/Type II labels are definitions attached to derived inequalities, not predictions that reduce to fitted inputs. Honest finding: no circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core mathematical result uses only standard combinatorics and Laplace's method. The load-bearing modeling choices are the single-copy, two-energy, ideal-gas assumptions and the effective parameter mapping used in the biophysical section. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • E0 (ssDNA effective offset binding energy) = 0 kcal/mol
    Set to zero because non-complementary ssDNA have no favorable binding; used in the search and combinatorics inequalities.
  • Delta (ssDNA effective energy advantage) = 31.5 kcal/mol
    Average over 1e6 random 20-base sequences using SantaLucia nearest-neighbor free energies.
  • E0 (TF-DNA effective offset binding energy) = 22.9 kcal/mol
    Derived from Jacobsen association constants minus estimated translational entropy.
  • Delta (TF-DNA effective energy advantage) = 6.4 kcal/mol
    Derived from specific versus non-specific TF-DNA binding free energies minus translational entropy.
  • E0 (protein-protein effective offset binding energy) = 18.9 kcal/mol
    Average functional binding free energy from Kastritis et al. minus estimated translational entropy.
  • Delta (protein-protein effective energy advantage) = 7.7 kcal/mol
    Non-functional binding estimate from Zhang et al. compared with the functional average.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Inclusion-exclusion formula for an,l (Eq. 14) correctly counts derivations from original pairs.
    Used to compute microstate degeneracies in the partition function.
  • standard math Laplace's method with N>>1 approximates the exact partition function, with Hessian positive definiteness checked in SM Sec. D2.
    Basis for equilibrium conditions Eq. (27) and Eq. (28).
  • domain assumption Each monomer species exists in a single copy; monomers and dimers are point particles with ideal-gas translational entropy only.
    Makes the combinatorics tractable and gives Eq. (9); the paper states this in Sec. II and discusses limitations in Sec. VIII.
  • domain assumption The 2N by 2N binding matrix is reduced to two parameters E0 and Delta.
    All incorrect dimers share -E0 and all correct dimers share -(E0+Delta); stated in Sec. IIA. This excludes sequence-specific interaction variation.
  • ad hoc to paper Measured binding free energies, minus an estimated translational entropy, give effective E0 and Delta.
    Section VI states this mapping is an approximation because the model omits rotational and vibrational entropies; the classification depends on these effective values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-assembly of a dimer system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EJUPQR4L

@misc{pith2026190900455,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-assembly of a dimer system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EJUPQR4L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00455}
}
read the original abstract

In the self-assembly process which drives the formation of cellular membranes, micelles, and capsids, a collection of separated subunits spontaneously binds together to form functional and more ordered structures. In this work, we study the statistical physics of self-assembly in a simpler scenario: the formation of dimers from a system of monomers. The properties of the model allow us to frame the microstate counting as a combinatorial problem whose solution leads to an exact partition function. From the associated equilibrium conditions, we find that such dimer systems come in two types: "search-limited" and "combinatorics-limited", only the former of which has states where partial assembly can be dominated by correct contacts. Using estimates of biophysical quantities in systems of single-stranded DNA dimerization, transcription factor and DNA interactions, and protein-protein interactions, we find that all of these systems appear to be of the search-limited type, i.e., their fully correct dimerization regimes are more limited by the ability of monomers to find one another in the constituent volume than by the combinatorial disadvantage of correct dimers. We derive the parameter requirements for fully correct dimerization and find that rather than the ratio of particle number and volume (number density) being the relevant quantity, it is the product of particle diversity and volume that is constrained. Ultimately, this work contributes to an understanding of self-assembly by using the simple case of a system of dimers to analytically study the combinatorics of assembly.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00455 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Self-assembling biomolecular dimer systems. In (a), distinct single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) strands exist in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (Color online) Example microstate of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Example microstates of a graph system with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (Color online) Numerical solutions to Eq.(27) and Eq.(28) and corresponding simulation results. We set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (Color online) Parameter space regimes of dimer system. In (a), we set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: In [27], Jacobsen lists 12 proteins (including endonu￾cleases, repressors, and activators) with their respective protein-DNA association constants for specific and non￾specific contacts under various conditions. Converting these association constants to binding free en…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: (Color online) Example microstate of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (Color online) Example microstate of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    There are N distinguishable monomers labeledβ1,β 2,...,β N each of which has mass mβ, and there areN distinguishable monomers labeled α1,α 2,...,α N each of which has massmα

    Gendered partition function Say that our system contains 2N distinguishable monomers of two kinds. There are N distinguishable monomers labeledβ1,β 2,...,β N each of which has mass mβ, and there areN distinguishable monomers labeled α1,α 2,...,α N each of which has massmα. The 2N total monomers exist in thermal equilibrium at temperatureT and in a volumeV...

    work page

  2. [2]

    self-assembly

    experienced by monomers when they associate into dimers. However, it is not clear whether these incorpo- rations would remove the sharp fall off in⟨m⟩ exhibited by Type II systems. Also, by giving the monomers and the dimers parti- tion functions of the formV/λ3 0, we assumed that they were dimensionless particles which did not interact out- side of their ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    search-limiting

    Inequalities for Assembly and Type With Eq.(A25) and Eq.(A26), we can derive inequali- ties analogous to Eq.(46), Eq.(47), and Eq.(49). For the gendered dimer system, the "search-limiting" condition, derived fromT <T′ I, is NV <λ 3 µeβ(E0+∆), (A28) where, consistent with theN≫ 1 limit, we dropped the O(N−1)terminEq.(A25). The"combinatorics-limiting" condi...

    work page

  4. [4]

    One type of monomer fixed;mα→∞ limit A special case of the gendered dimer system occurs when one of the two types of monomers is fixed in space. We can envision such a system as havingN distinguish- able monomers interacting withN binding sites where each monomer has a preferred binding site to which it binds with energy−(E0 + ∆); for all other binding site...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Equilibrium Conditions With Eq.(A12), the next step in studying the equilib- rium properties of the gendered dimer system is to derive the equilibrium conditions. Given Eq.(A2), we see that we can compute the average number of total dimers and the average number of correct dimers, respectively, with ⟨j⟩ = ∂ ∂(βE0) lnZ′ N, (A15) ⟨𝓁⟩ = ∂ ∂(β∆) lnZ′ N. (A16)...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Thermodynamics of phospholipid self- assembly,

    D. Marsh, "Thermodynamics of phospholipid self- assembly,”Biophysical journal, vol. 102, no. 5, pp. 1079– 1087, 2012

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Mechanisms of virus assembly,

    J. D. Perlmutter and M. F. Hagan, "Mechanisms of virus assembly,”Annual review of physical chemistry, vol. 66, pp. 217–239, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Nelson, Biological physics: Energy, information life, ch

    P. Nelson, Biological physics: Energy, information life, ch. 8, pp. 315–332. WH Freeman New York, 2004

    work page 2004

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    The energy landscape as a unifying theme in molecular science,

    D. J. Wales, "The energy landscape as a unifying theme in molecular science,”Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 363, no. 1827, pp. 357–377, 2005

    2005

  2. [10]

    Decipher- ing the kinetic mechanism of spontaneous self-assembly of icosahedral capsids,

    H. D. Nguyen, V. S. Reddy, and C. L. Brooks, "Decipher- ing the kinetic mechanism of spontaneous self-assembly of icosahedral capsids,”Nano letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 338– 344, 2007

    2007

  3. [11]

    Modellingthe self-assembly of virus capsids,

    I.G.Johnston, A.A.Louis, andJ.P.Doye, "Modellingthe self-assembly of virus capsids,”Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter, vol. 22, no. 10, p. 104101, 2010

    2010

  4. [12]

    Theory of self-assembly of hydrocarbon amphiphiles into micelles and bilayers,

    J. N. Israelachvili, D. J. Mitchell, and B. W. Ninham, "Theory of self-assembly of hydrocarbon amphiphiles into micelles and bilayers,”Journal of the Chemical Society, Faraday Transactions 2: Molecular and Chemical Physics, vol. 72, pp. 1525–1568, 1976

    1976

  5. [13]

    Nonspecific binding limits the number of proteins in a cell and shapes their in- teraction networks,

    M. E. Johnson and G. Hummer, "Nonspecific binding limits the number of proteins in a cell and shapes their in- teraction networks,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 603–608, 2011

    2011

  6. [14]

    C.Chuan-ChongandK.Khee-Meng, Principles and tech- niques in combinatorics, vol. 2. World Scientific, 1992

    1992

  7. [15]

    Design principles for nonequilibrium self-assembly,

    M. Nguyen and S. Vaikuntanathan, "Design principles for nonequilibrium self-assembly,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 113, no. 50, pp. 14231–14236, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    Computational design of pro- tein self-assembly,

    C. H. Norn and I. André, "Computational design of pro- tein self-assembly,”Current opinion in structural biology, vol. 39, pp. 39–45, 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    Robust protein–protein interactions in crowded cellular environments,

    E. J. Deeds, O. Ashenberg, J. Gerardin, and E. I. Shakhnovich, "Robust protein–protein interactions in crowded cellular environments,”Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences, vol. 104, no. 38, pp. 14952– 14957, 2007

    2007

  10. [18]

    Constraints imposed by non-functional protein–protein interactions on gene expression and proteome size,

    J. Zhang, S. Maslov, and E. I. Shakhnovich, "Constraints imposed by non-functional protein–protein interactions on gene expression and proteome size,”Molecular systems bi- ology, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 210, 2008

    2008

  11. [19]

    J. P. Sethna, Statistical mechanics: entropy, order pa- rameters, and complexity, vol. 14. Oxford University Press Oxford, 2006

    2006

  12. [20]

    Lambert w-function,

    E. W. Weisstein, "Lambert w-function,”Wolfram Math- world, 2002

    2002

  13. [21]

    effective

    which, in a more complete theoretical treatment, would have been accounted for in our dimer partition function Eq.(9). Because our model only takes into ac- count the translational entropy of the dimers, when given biophysical data on binding free energies, we will takeE0 andE...

  14. [22]

    Avoiding your spouse at a bridge party,

    B. H. Margolius, "Avoiding your spouse at a bridge party,”Mathematics Magazine, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 33–41, 2001

    2001

  15. [23]

    K. W. Breitung,Asymptotic approximations for probabil- ity integrals. Springer, 2006

    2006

  16. [24]

    J. H. Hubbard and B. B. Hubbard,Vector calculus, linear algebra, and differential forms: a unified approach. Matrix Editions, 2015. 24

    2015

  17. [25]

    However, this difference makes a sub-leading contribution to our physical results when working in theN≫ 1 limit

    We acknowledge that by the definition of free energy as −kBT ln ZN(V, T, ; E0, ∆), our quantity FN differs from the actual free energy by a term proportional toln detH. However, this difference makes a sub-leading contribution to our physical results when working in theN≫ 1 limit...

  18. [26]

    Irving,Beyond the quadratic formula, vol

    R. Irving,Beyond the quadratic formula, vol. 43. MAA, 2013

    2013

  19. [27]

    Protein—dna recognition complexes: Conservation of structure and binding energy in the transition state,

    L. Jen-Jacobson, "Protein—dna recognition complexes: Conservation of structure and binding energy in the transition state,” Biopolymers: Original Research on Biomolecules, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 153–180, 1997

    1997

  20. [28]

    The price of lost free- dom: entropy of bimolecular complex formation,

    A. V. Finkelstein and J. Janin, "The price of lost free- dom: entropy of bimolecular complex formation,”Protein Engineering, Design and Selection, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–3, 1989

    1989

  21. [29]

    Optimization of pcr: conver- sations between michael and david,

    M. Innis and D. Gelfand, "Optimization of pcr: conver- sations between michael and david,” inPCR Applications, pp. 3–22, Elsevier, 1999

    1999

  22. [30]

    Watching dna breath one molecule at a time,

    J. Fei and T. Ha, "Watching dna breath one molecule at a time,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 110, no. 43, pp. 17173–17174, 2013

    2013

  23. [31]

    A unified view of polymer, dumbbell, and oligonucleotide dna nearest-neighbor thermodynam- ics,

    J. SantaLucia, "A unified view of polymer, dumbbell, and oligonucleotide dna nearest-neighbor thermodynam- ics,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 1460–1465, 1998

    1998

  24. [32]

    D. E. Metzler,Biochemistry: The Chemical Reactions of Living Cells, vol. 1, ch. 1, p. 4. Academic Press, 2001

    2001

  25. [33]

    Alberts, D

    B. Alberts, D. Bray, K. Hopkin, A. Johnson, J. Lewis, M. Raff, K. Roberts, and P. Walter,Essential cell biology. Garland Science, 4th ed., 2013

    2013

  26. [34]

    Toward a protein profile of escherichia coli: comparison to its transcription profile,

    R. W. Corbin, O. Paliy, F. Yang, J. Shabanowitz, M.Platt, C.E.Lyons, K.Root, J.McAuliffe, M.I.Jordan, S. Kustu, et al., "Toward a protein profile of escherichia coli: comparison to its transcription profile,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 100, no. 16, pp. 9...

    2003

  27. [35]

    Milo and R

    R. Milo and R. Phillips,Cell biology by the numbers. Gar- land Science, 2015

    2015

  28. [36]

    The repertoire of dna-binding transcriptional regulators in escherichia coli k-12,

    E. Pérez-Rueda and J. Collado-Vides, "The repertoire of dna-binding transcriptional regulators in escherichia coli k-12,”Nucleic acids research, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 1838– 1847, 2000

    2000

  29. [37]

    Facilitated target lo- cation in biological systems.,

    P. H. von Hippel and O. G. Berg, "Facilitated target lo- cation in biological systems.,”Journal of Biological Chem- istry, vol. 264, no. 2, pp. 675–678, 1989

    1989

  30. [38]

    The cell as a collection of protein machines: preparing the next generation of molecular biologists,

    B. Alberts, "The cell as a collection of protein machines: preparing the next generation of molecular biologists,” Cell, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 291–294, 1998

    1998

  31. [39]

    combinatorics-limited

    in which even if the parameter space diagrams in Fig. 5 suggest that the system is in the regime of fully correct dimerization, the system can remain, for long simulation times, in a state of only partially-correct dimers. This kinetic trapping appears to be most prevalent in ...

  32. [40]

    A structure-based benchmark for protein–protein binding affinity,

    P. L. Kastritis, I. H. Moal, H. Hwang, Z. Weng, P. A. Bates, A. M. Bonvin, and J. Janin, "A structure-based benchmark for protein–protein binding affinity,”Protein Science, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 482–491, 2011

    2011

  33. [41]

    Character- ization of the e. coli proteome and its modifications dur- ing growth and ethanol stress,

    B. Soufi, K. Krug, A. Harst, and B. Macek, "Character- ization of the e. coli proteome and its modifications dur- ing growth and ethanol stress,”Frontiers in microbiology, vol. 6, p. 103, 2015

    2015

  34. [42]

    Statis- ticallyenhancedself-attractionofrandompatterns,

    D. Lukatsky, K. Zeldovich, and E. Shakhnovich, "Statis- ticallyenhancedself-attractionofrandompatterns,” Phys- ical review letters, vol. 97, no. 17, p. 178101, 2006

    2006

  35. [43]

    Diversity of protein– protein interactions,

    I. M. Nooren and J. M. Thornton, "Diversity of protein– protein interactions,”The EMBO journal, vol. 22, no. 14, pp. 3486–3492, 2003

    2003

  36. [44]

    How crowded is the cytoplasm?,

    A. B. Fulton, "How crowded is the cytoplasm?,”Cell, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 345–347, 1982

    1982

  37. [45]

    Kardar,Statistical physics of particles, ch

    M. Kardar,Statistical physics of particles, ch. 5, pp. 48–

  38. [47]

    Mechanisms of kinetic trapping in self-assembly and phase transforma- tion,

    M. F. Hagan, O. M. Elrad, and R. L. Jack, "Mechanisms of kinetic trapping in self-assembly and phase transforma- tion,”The Journal of chemical physics, vol. 135, no. 10, p. 104115, 2011

    2011

  39. [48]

    Combinatorial identities: Table ii: Ad- vanced techniques for summing finite series

    H. W. Gould, "Combinatorial identities: Table ii: Ad- vanced techniques for summing finite series.” document at https://www.math.wvu.edu/~gould/Vol.5.PDF, May 2010. 1 Supplemental Materials for "Self-Assembly of a Dimer System" A Link to Supplementary Code Jupyter notebooks for...

    2010

  40. [49]

    Weight = (Nm 2 ) /(Nd + 1) Example: mon = [1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9] and dim =[(2, 8), (7, 10)]→ mon = [1, 4, 6, 9] and dim = [(3, 5), (2, 8), (7, 10)]; Weight = 15/3

    Monomer Association: Two randomly chosen monomers are removed from the monomer list, joined as a pair, and the pair is appended to the dimer list. Weight = (Nm 2 ) /(Nd + 1) Example: mon = [1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9] and dim =[(2, 8), (7, 10)]→ mon = [1, 4, 6, 9] and dim = [(3, 5), (2,...

  41. [50]

    Cambridge University Press, 2007

    2007

  42. [51]

    Weight =Nd/ (Nm+2 2 ) Example: mon = [6, 9] and dim =[(1, 4), (3, 5), (2, 8), (7, 10)]→ mon = [2, 6, 8, 9] and dim = [(1, 4), (3, 5), (7, 10)]; Weight = 4/6

    Dimer Dissociation: One randomly chosen dimer is removed from the dimer list, and both of its elements are appended to the monomer list. Weight =Nd/ (Nm+2 2 ) Example: mon = [6, 9] and dim =[(1, 4), (3, 5), (2, 8), (7, 10)]→ mon = [2, 6, 8, 9] and dim = [(1, 4), (3, 5), (7, 10...

  43. [52]

    fully correct dimerization

    Dimer Cross-Over: Two dimers are chosen randomly. One randomly chosen element from one dimer is switched with a randomly chosen element of the other dimer. Weight =1. Example: dim = [(1, 4), (3, 5)(7, 10)]→ dim = [(1, 10), (3, 5), (4, 10)] ]; Weight = 1. The third type of tran...

    2001

Pith tools

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