Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 67 references

Repulsion and attraction in the interactions of opposite membrane deformations

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Opposite membrane curvature repels when weak and attracts when strong.

desk verdict First quantitative look at opposite-curvature membrane interactions, with a genuinely useful repulsion measurement for fully wrapped particles; the partially wrapped 'attraction' is compromised by a missing adhesion control. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16910 v1 pith:SKXQCVD2 submitted 2024-11-25 cond-mat.soft

Ali Azadbakht , Daniela J. Kraft This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.soft
keywords membrane-mediatedinteractioncurvature-mediatedgiantunilamellarvesiclemembranetubeJanusparticleswrappingfractionpotentialopticaltweezers
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 whether two objects that deform a lipid membrane in opposite directions attract or repel each other through the membrane, and answers that the sign depends on how strongly they deform it. Using a giant unilamellar vesicle, the authors pair a particle wrapped inward by the membrane with an outward membrane tube pulled by optical tweezers. Fully wrapped particles, which imprint a weak deformation, are repelled from the tube with an energy of about 3 kBT at 0.5 µm. Particles wrapped over only about half their surface, which imprint a much stronger deformation, are instead attracted into a potential well 5.3 kBT deep centered about 1 µm from the tube. If the result holds, curvature-mediated interactions in cell membranes cannot be classified by curvature sign alone; the magnitude of the induced deformation matters.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the geodesic distance s between the wrapped particle and the junction where the pulled tube meets the vesicle; the reported energies are functions of s. The experimental apparatus pairs controlled wrapping (NeutrAvidin–biotin adhesion density sets the contact area) with an optical trap that pulls a membrane tube outward, creating a well-defined positive-curvature deformation opposite the particle's inward deformation. Interaction energies are extracted from confocal trajectories with a transition-probability-matrix method that assumes a constant diffusion coefficient and equilibrium Boltzmann sampling, and the particle's out-of-plane position is reconstructed by assuming the vesicle is ellipsoidal. For the strongly attractive Janus pairs, where Boltzmann statistics cannot be sampled, the authors switch to two optical traps and measure the force directly.

What would settle it

Track a wrapped particle's short-time mean-squared displacement in narrow bins of distance from the tube: if the local diffusion coefficient varies beyond experimental error, the transition-probability energies (3 kBT and -5.3 kBT) are biased; equivalently, measure the force-distance curve directly with two optical traps and compare it with the negative gradient of the reported potential.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a sign switch: the first experimental measurement of the membrane-mediated interaction between oppositely curved deformations shows repulsion for small deformations and attraction for large ones. A fully wrapped particle deforming a GUV membrane inward is repelled from an outward-deforming membrane tube, with a repulsion of about 3 kBT at a geodesic distance of 0.5 µm and a power-law decay with exponent -0.80 ± 0.08. A partially wrapped particle with about 53% coverage experiences an attractive potential well of -5.3 kBT centered roughly 1 µm from the tube, with a parabolic stiffness of 51.5 ± 0.5 fN/µm. Janus particles with 67% of their surface adhered attract each other with a maximum force of about 0.4 pN near contact, while particles with only 5% adhesion show no measurable interaction. Non-deforming adhered particles show no interaction with the tube, confirming that the forces are curvature-mediated rather than fluctuation-mediated.

Load-bearing premise

The reported energies are computed from particle trajectories assuming a constant diffusion coefficient and equilibrium Boltzmann sampling, even in the strongly curved region next to the tube where friction and available phase space may differ.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Opposite-curvature deformations are not universally repulsive; at fixed membrane tension, the sign of the membrane-mediated force is controlled by how strongly the object curves the membrane.
  • The measured energies (3 kBT repulsive, -5.3 kBT attractive) are of the same order as the equal-deformation attraction found earlier, so both channels can compete when proteins or colloids organize on a membrane.
  • Because non-deforming adhered particles show no interaction, the observed forces are attributable to membrane bending and tension rather than to thermal fluctuations or direct colloid-tube contact.
  • The direct optical-trap measurement gives a value of about 0.4 pN for the strongest same-side attraction in this system, a number that simulations and continuum theories of partially wrapped particles should reproduce.
  • The short-range power-law repulsion with exponent -0.80 provides a quantitative target for theories of two opposite deformations on a tense membrane.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could map the repulsion-to-attraction switch by measuring energy profiles for a series of patch sizes between 5% and 67%; if the switch is monotonic in wrapping fraction, the threshold itself would be a measurable material property of the membrane-particle pair.
  • The attractive well at about 1 µm from the tube suggests a tube can act as a curvature trap that locally concentrates strongly deforming objects before they finish wrapping; this could be tested by seeding a partially wrapped particle near a tube and watching whether wrapping completes preferentially there.
  • In a multicomponent membrane, the sign switch implies that weakly and strongly curving proteins of the same curvature sign could self-segregate, since weak equal-sign deformations may repel while strong ones attract; the paper does not test this directly.
  • The assumption of constant diffusion coefficient near the tube is testable with local mean-squared-displacement measurements; if it fails, the absolute values of 3 kBT and -5.3 kBT would shift but the qualitative sign switch could still stand.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental study of membrane-mediated interactions between colloids and a pulled membrane tube in giant unilamellar vesicles. A membrane tube pulled outward creates a positive-curvature deformation, while particles wrapped on the inside create a negative-curvature deformation. The authors find that fully wrapped particles are repelled from the tube, with a repulsion of about 3 kBT at a distance of 0.5 µm and a power-law decay, whereas partially wrapped particles (about 50% coverage) are attracted to a potential well of -5.3 kBT located about 1 µm from the tube. They also report that Janus particles with a 67% adhesive patch attract each other with a maximum force of about 0.4 pN. The paper interprets these observations as evidence that the sign of curvature-mediated interactions depends on the strength of the deformation.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, these experiments provide a quantitative demonstration that the sign of membrane-mediated interactions between oppositely curved deformations depends on deformation strength, a result that is relevant to cooperative protein assembly and microplastic interactions with cell membranes. The manuscript's strengths include the use of multiple independent techniques (transition-probability-based energy extraction and direct optical-tweezer force measurements), the inclusion of a non-deforming control, and the comparison with existing theoretical and simulation predictions. The central claim, however, rests on a control that may not exclude a direct adhesive interaction between the partially wrapped particle and the biotinylated tube, which makes the significance conditional on additional controls or analysis.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3.2 and Fig. 3b] The attractive potential of -5.3 kBT for a partially wrapped particle may be caused by direct NeutrAvidin–biotin adhesion between the exposed surface of the particle and the biotinylated membrane of the tube, rather than by a curvature-mediated interaction. The partially wrapped particle is a standard, fully NeutrAvidin-functionalized colloid that is only about 50% covered by the membrane; its non-wrapped hemisphere is therefore still coated with NeutrAvidin and can bind biotin lipids on the tube. The control shown in Fig. 3b (green squares) is the same low-NeutrAvidin (2.5% surface coverage) particle used in Sec. 3.1, which cannot form such bonds. This control therefore does not rule out direct adhesion for the partially wrapped case. The paper's conclusion in Sec. 4 that "the interaction was solely due to the curvature" is not established for this system. Please provide a control using a partially wrapped particle whose non-wrapped hemisphere is passivated (e.g., with mPEG) or otherwise non-adhesive, or demonstrate from the trajectories that the particle does not contact the tube.
  2. [Sec. 3, energy extraction method] The transition-probability method used to extract interaction energies assumes a constant diffusion coefficient and equilibrium Boltzmann sampling. Near the tube, the membrane is strongly curved and the partially wrapped particle's local hydrodynamic coupling and available phase space may differ from the unperturbed membrane. If the diffusion coefficient decreases near the tube, the method would infer an apparent attractive well even in the absence of a real potential. The non-deforming control shows no measurable interaction, but that particle has a different geometry and may not experience the same position-dependent friction as a partially wrapped particle. Please test the constancy of the diffusion coefficient as a function of s from the trajectory data, or cross-validate the tube-particle potential with an independent force measurement of the type used for the Janus particles in Sec. 3.3.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.7] The height reconstruction assumes that the particle is confined to an ellipsoidal membrane, but near the tube the membrane shape is strongly perturbed; please quantify the uncertainty in the geodesic distance s that this approximation introduces for particles close to the tube.
  2. [Sec. 1 and Sec. 3.2] There are several typographical errors and incomplete references, for example "25? –28" in the introduction and "? Upon" in Sec. 3.2; these should be corrected.
  3. [Sec. 3.3] The sentence "they do not interact significantly interact" contains a duplicated verb and should be revised.
  4. [Sec. 4] The conclusion overstates the strength of the control experiment; please soften the claim that the interaction is "solely due to the curvature" in light of the control limitations discussed in the major comments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Experimental measurement paper; no circular derivation found.

full rationale

The manuscript reports measured interaction energies extracted from single-particle trajectories via a transition-probability-matrix Boltzmann inversion (Section 3), with the constant-diffusion and ellipsoidal-geometry assumptions stated explicitly. The power-law and parabolic fits are descriptive characterizations of the measured profiles, not fitted inputs used to generate the reported energy values. The zero-energy baseline is an explicit normalization at 4–5 µm distance. Controls with low-coverage NeutrAvidin particles are external checks; the possibility that the partially wrapped case is confounded by direct NeutrAvidin–biotin adhesion is a validity concern, not a circularity. Self-citations (refs. 30, 32, 33, 35, 62) concern established experimental and analysis methods and are not load-bearing for the central claim. No equation or definition reduces a reported result to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experimental numbers are measured directly, but the conversion of trajectories into energies rests on a constant-diffusion, equilibrium-Boltzmann assumption and on an ellipsoidal membrane reconstruction. Membrane tension derives from literature κ and the tube-pulling force. The descriptive power-law and parabolic fits are included for completeness.

free parameters (3)
  • Zero-energy baseline at geodesic distances 4 to 5 µm = 0 kBT by definition
    The interaction energy is offset so that its average at 4-5 µm equals zero (Section 3.1). If the tube deformation still perturbs the membrane at those distances, the reported energy depths would shift.
  • Power-law amplitude and exponent for fully wrapped repulsion = α = 0.78 ± 0.14, β = -0.83 ± 0.08
    Fit to the measured energy profile in Fig. 2b inset. Descriptive only; the central repulsion claim does not depend on the fitted exponent.
  • Parabolic well stiffness for partially wrapped attraction = 51.5 ± 0.5 fN/µm
    Harmonic fit to the measured potential well in Fig. 3b. Descriptive; the attraction claim rests on the measured well depth, not on this stiffness.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The transition probability matrix method assumes a constant diffusion coefficient and Boltzmann equilibrium along the geodesic coordinate s.
    Invoked in Section 3 to convert particle displacements into interaction energy u(s). If D varies near the tube or the trajectory is non-equilibrated, inferred energies are biased.
  • domain assumption Particle z-positions are reconstructed by assuming the particle is confined to an ellipsoidal membrane fitted to the GUV, even in the vicinity of the tube-induced deformation.
    Materials and Methods Section 2.7; errors in this geometric model propagate into the geodesic distance s and therefore into the energy profile.
  • domain assumption Membrane tension is extracted from the tube-pulling force using σ=F²/(8π²κ) with κ=22 kBT from the literature for DOPC vesicles.
    Section 3 first paragraph; an incorrect κ would rescale σ and the inferred tube diameter, though it does not by itself change the sign of the interaction.
  • domain assumption Adhesion area of Janus particles equals the functionalized patch area, because NeutrAvidin-biotin bonds are permanent (17 kBT) on the experimental timescale.
    Section 3.3; wrapping fraction estimates (67±7%, 5±3%) rely on this equivalence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Repulsion and attraction in the interactions of opposite membrane deformations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SKXQCVD2

@misc{pith2026241116910,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Repulsion and attraction in the interactions of opposite membrane deformations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SKXQCVD2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16910}
}
abstract

Lipid membrane deformations have been predicted to lead to indirect forces between the objects that induce these deformations. Recent experimental measurements have found an attractive interaction between spherical particles that all induce a deformation towards the inside of a giant unilamellar vesicle. Here, we complement these experimental observations by investigating the interactions between deformations pointing in opposite directions with respect to the membrane normal vector. This is experimentally realized by a particle deforming the membrane towards the inside of the GUV and pulling a membrane tube towards the outside of the membrane. Particles completely wrapped by the membrane are repelled from the tube with a strength of 3~k$_B$T at a distance of 0.5~$\mu$m. However, particles that strongly curve the membrane by adhering only to a patch of about 50~\% of its surface area are attracted to the center of the tube with a strength of -5.3~k$_B$T at a minimum distance of about 1~$\mu$m. We find that such Janus particles also experience attractive interactions when both deforming the membrane in the same way. These quantitative experimental observations provide new insights into interactions between oppositely membrane deforming objects, important for cooperative protein assembly at or interactions of microplastics with cell membranes.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. P. Overington, B. Al-Lazikani and A. L. Hopkins, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2006, 5, 993--996

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    o m, R. Fredriksson and H. B. Schi \

    M. S. Alm \' e n, K. J. Nordstr \" o m, R. Fredriksson and H. B. Schi \" o th, BMC Biology, 2009, 7, 50

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    X. Meng, J. Clews, V. Kargas, X. Wang and R. C. Ford, Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, 2017, 74, 23--38

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Suzuki, Y

    T. Suzuki, Y. Araki, T. Yamamoto and T. Nakaya, Journal of Biochemistry, 2006, 139, 949--955

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    S. H. Lee, D. H. Kim, U. Kuzmanov and A. O. Gramolini, American Journal of Physiology - Heart and Circulatory Physiology, 2021, 320, H417--H423

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Zhang, S

    Z. Zhang, S. Witham and E. Alexov, Physical Biology, 2011, 8, 35001

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    P. A. Kralchevsky and K. Nagayama, Langmuir, 1994, 10, 23--36

    work page 1994

  8. [8]

    C. M. Roth, B. L. Neal and A. M. Lenhoff, Biophysical Journal, 1996, 70, 977--987

    work page 1996

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    J. A. Killian, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta - Reviews on Biomembranes, 1998, 1376, 401--416

    1998

  2. [10]

    N. Dan, P. Pincus and S. A. Safran, Langmuir, 1993, 9, 2768--2771

    1993

  3. [11]

    Goulian, R

    M. Goulian, R. Bruinsma and P. Pincus, Europhysics Letters, 1993, 23, 155

    1993

  4. [12]

    Golestanian, M

    R. Golestanian, M. Goulian and M. Kardar, Europhysics Letters, 1996, 33, 241--245

    1996

  5. [13]

    B. J. Reynwar and M. Deserno, Biointerphases, 2008, 3, FA117--FA124

    2008

  6. [14]

    Pezeshkian, H

    W. Pezeshkian, H. Gao, S. Arumugam, U. Becken, P. Bassereau, J. C. Florent, J. H. Ipsen, L. Johannes and J. C. Shillcock, ACS Nano, 2017, 11, 314--324

    2017

  7. [15]

    T. R. Weikl, M. M. Kozlov and W. Helfrich, Physical Review E - Statistical Physics, Plasmas, Fluids, and Related Interdisciplinary Topics, 1998, 57, 6988--6995

    1998

  8. [16]

    J. B. Fournier and P. G. Dommersnes, Europhysics Letters (EPL), 1997, 39, 681--682

    1997

  9. [17]

    K. S. Kim, J. Neu and G. Oster, Biophysical Journal, 1998, 75, 2274--2291

    1998

  10. [18]

    T. R. Weikl, European Physical Journal E, 2003, 12, 265--273

    2003

  11. [19]

    M. M. M \" u ller, M. Deserno and J. Guven, Europhysics Letters, 2005, 69, 482--488

    2005

  12. [20]

    M. M. M \" u ller, M. Deserno and J. Guven, Physical Review E - Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 2007, 76, 1--16

    2007

  13. [21]

    M. M. M \" u ller and M. Deserno, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 2010, 184, 351--363

    2010

  14. [22]

    Mkrtchyan, C

    S. Mkrtchyan, C. Ing and J. Z. Chen, Physical Review E - Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 2010, 81, 1--9

    2010

  15. [23]

    Yolcu and M

    C. Yolcu and M. Deserno, Physical Review E, 2012, 86, 1--12

    2012

  16. [24]

    Weitz and N

    S. Weitz and N. Destainville, Soft Matter, 2013, 9, 7804--7816

    2013

  17. [25]

    B. J. Reynwar and M. Deserno, Soft Matter, 2011, 7, 8567--8575

    2011

  18. [26]

    A. H. Bahrami and T. R. Weikl, Nano Letters, 2018, 18, 1259--1263

    2018

  19. [27]

    Y. Zhu, A. Sharma, E. J. Spangler and M. Laradji, Soft Matter, 2022, 18, 4689--4698

    2022

  20. [28]

    Y. Zhu, A. Sharma, E. J. Spangler and M. Laradji, Soft Matter, 2023, 19, 7591--7601

    2023

  21. [29]

    Koltover, J

    I. Koltover, J. O. R \" a dler and C. R. Safinya, Physical Review Letters, 1999, 82, 1991--1994

    1999

  22. [30]

    van der Wel, A

    C. van der Wel, A. Vahid, A. S ari \' c , T. Idema, D. Heinrich and D. J. Kraft, Scientific Reports, 2016, 6, 1--10

    2016

  23. [31]

    Sarfati and E

    R. Sarfati and E. R. Dufresne, Physical Review E, 2016, 94, 2--7

    2016

  24. [32]

    Azadbakht, B

    A. Azadbakht, B. Meadowcroft, J. M \' a jek, A. S ari \' c and D. J. Kraft, arXiv preprint, 2023, --

    2023

  25. [33]

    Azadbakht, B

    A. Azadbakht, B. Meadowcroft, T. Varkevisser, A. S ari \' c and D. J. Kraft, Nano Letters, 2023, 23, 4267--4273

    2023

  26. [34]

    Appel, S

    J. Appel, S. Akerboom, R. G. Fokkink and J. Sprakel, Macromolecular Rapid Communications, 2013, 34, 1284--1288

    2013

  27. [35]

    van der Wel, N

    C. van der Wel, N. Bossert, Q. J. Mank, M. G. Winter, D. Heinrich and D. J. Kraft, Langmuir, 2017, 33, 9803--9810

    2017

  28. [36]

    R. W. Bowman, G. M. Gibson, A. Linnenberger, D. B. Phillips, J. A. Grieve, D. M. Carberry, S. Serati, M. J. Miles and M. J. Padgett, Computer Physics Communications, 2014, 185, 268--273

    2014

  29. [37]

    D. B. Allan, T. Caswell, N. C. Keim, C. M. van der Wel and R. W. Verweij, soft-matter/trackpy: Trackpy v0.5.0 , 2021, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4682814#.Y7QhE5rX4vs.mendeley

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    van der Wel, circletracking v1.0 , 2016, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.47216

    C. van der Wel, circletracking v1.0 , 2016, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.47216

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    van der Wel, D

    C. van der Wel, D. Heinrich and D. J. Kraft, Biophysical Journal, 2017, 113, 1037--1046

    2017

  32. [40]

    H. T. Spanke, R. W. Style, C. Fran c ois-Martin, M. Feofilova, M. Eisentraut, H. Kress, J. Agudo-Canalejo and E. R. Dufresne, Physical Review Letters, 2020, 125, 1--9

    2020

  33. [41]

    A. Moga, N. Yandrapalli, R. Dimova and T. Robinson, ChemBioChem, 2019, 20, 2674--2682

    2019

  34. [42]

    Morita and N

    M. Morita and N. Noda, Langmuir, 2021, 37, 2268--2275

    2021

  35. [43]

    Dasgupta, M

    R. Dasgupta, M. S. Miettinen, N. Fricke, R. Lipowsky and R. Dimova, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018, 115, 5756--5761

    2018

  36. [44]

    Simunovic, C

    M. Simunovic, C. Pr \' e vost, C. J. Andrew and P. Bassereau, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 2016, 374, --

    2016

  37. [45]

    Rawicz, K

    W. Rawicz, K. C. Olbrich, T. McIntosh, D. Needham and E. A. Evans, Biophysical Journal, 2000, 79, 328--339

    2000

  38. [46]

    H. A. Faizi, C. J. Reeves, V. N. Georgiev, P. M. Vlahovska and R. Dimova, Soft Matter, 2020, 16, 8996--9001

    2020

  39. [47]

    F. S. Gnesotto, G. Gradziuk, P. Ronceray and C. P. Broedersz, Nature Communications, 2020, 11, 1--9

    2020

  40. [48]

    Frishman and P

    A. Frishman and P. Ronceray, Physical Review X, 2020, 10, 21009

    2020

  41. [49]

    J. W. Merrill, S. K. Sainis and E. R. Dufresne, Physical Review Letters, 2009, 103, 1--4

    2009

  42. [50]

    Sarfati, J

    R. Sarfati, J. B awzdziewicz and E. R. Dufresne, Soft Matter, 2017, 13, 2174--2180

    2017

  43. [51]

    J. C. Crocker and D. G. Grier, Physical Review Letters, 1994, 73, 352--355

    1994

  44. [52]

    J. C. Crocker and D. G. Grier, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 1996, 179, 298--310

    1996

  45. [53]

    Agudo-Canalejo and R

    J. Agudo-Canalejo and R. Lipowsky, Soft Matter, 2017, 13, 2155--2173

    2017

  46. [54]

    N. Li, N. Sharifi-Mood, F. Tu, D. Lee, R. Radhakrishnan, T. Baumgart and K. J. Stebe, Langmuir, 2017, 33, 600--610

    2017

  47. [55]

    Vahid, A

    A. Vahid, A. S ari \' c and T. Idema, Soft Matter, 2017, 13, 4924--4930

    2017

  48. [56]

    Z. Yan, Z. Wu, S. Li, X. Zhang, X. Yi and T. Yue, Nanoscale, 2019, 11, 19751--19762

    2019

  49. [57]

    Al-Shehri, T

    H. Al-Shehri, T. S. Horozov and V. N. Paunov, Soft Matter, 2014, 10, 6433--6441

    2014

  50. [58]

    Sabapathy, V

    M. Sabapathy, V. Kollabattula, M. G. Basavaraj and E. Mani, Nanoscale, 2015, 7, 13868--13876

    2015

  51. [59]

    V. T. Moy, E. L. Florin and H. E. Gaub, Science, 1994, 266, 257--259

    1994

  52. [60]

    Dietrich, M

    C. Dietrich, M. Angelova and B. Pouligny, Journal de physique. II, 1997, 7, 1651--1682

    1997

  53. [61]

    E. J. Ewins, K. Han, B. Bharti, T. Robinson, O. D. Velev and R. Dimova, Chemical Communications, 2022, 58, 3055--3058

    2022

  54. [62]

    Azadbakht, T

    A. Azadbakht, T. R. Weikl and D. J. Kraft, ACS Nano, 2024, 18, 23067--23076

    2024

  55. [63]

    P \' e cr \' e aux, H

    J. P \' e cr \' e aux, H. G. D \" o bereiner, J. Prost, J. F. Joanny and P. Bassereau, European Physical Journal E, 2004, 13, 277--290

    2004

  56. [64]

    Deserno, Physical Review E, 2004, 69, 031903

    M. Deserno, Physical Review E, 2004, 69, 031903

    2004

  57. [65]

    S. L. Veatch and S. L. Keller, Biophysical Journal, 2003, 85, 3074--3083

    2003

  58. [66]

    u hler, Paul and Lohm \

    D. Needham and E. Evans, Biochemistry, 1988, 27, 8261--8269 mcitethebibliography main-softmatter.tex0000664000000000000000000012676014721156237013436 0ustar rootroot [twoside,twocolumn,9pt ] article extsizes [super,sort&compress,comma] natbib [version=3] mhchem [left=1.5cm, ri...

    1988 arXiv

  59. [67]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.