Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 47 references

Nanopillar-Driven Antibacterial Surfaces: Elucidating Bactericidal Mechanisms and Engineering Nanostructures for Enhanced Efficacy

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Nanopillar bactericidal action splits into tip-tearing and contact-piercing depending on membrane stiffness.

desk verdict Interesting full-cell CG result on tip-adjacent tearing, but the two-mechanism story confounds bending rigidity with loading rate and needs the missing control before it can be believed. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11727 v1 pith:QTYLEY7E submitted 2025-01-20 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.bio-phphysics.comp-ph

Akash Singh , Yi Zhang , Qing Cao , Yumeng Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.bio-phphysics.comp-ph
keywords mechano-bactericidalsurfacescoarse-grainedmoleculardynamicsmembranebendingrigiditynanopillarbactericidalmechanismgram-negativeversusgram-positivebacteriabiomimeticantibacterialbacterialtearingnanostructuredesign
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 the way nanopillared surfaces kill bacteria is set mainly by the bending stiffness of the bacterial membrane, not by the commonly assumed sagging between pillars. Using a coarse-grained membrane whose stiffness is calibrated to real gram-negative and gram-positive values, the simulations show that flexible membranes fail by tearing near the nanopillar tip, while stiff membranes stay intact and can only be killed when a strong enough force drives a pillar through them. The paper also shows that tall, closely spaced pillars are more lethal and that small spherical bacteria can escape by dropping between pillars. If the central claim is right, antibiotic-free surfaces can be engineered by selecting pillar height and spacing according to the target organism's membrane stiffness.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a one-particle-thick coarse-grained membrane whose pair potential has a repulsive-attractive radial part and an angular part that penalizes misorientation, giving parameters that tune the membrane's bending rigidity. The rigidity is matched to real bacterial membranes through the height-fluctuation spectrum $\langle |h(q)|^2 \rangle = k_B T/(K_c q^4)$, and an extra body force called the loading rate supplies the adhesive, gravitational, and hydrodynamic driving that the Lennard-Jones pillar-membrane term only partially captures. This lets the model simulate whole 500-nm spherical and 1800-nm cylindrical bacteria rather than membrane patches, and it is what allows failure to nucleate at a specific point of contact.

What would settle it

Look for the first breach: a low-rigidity membrane on 200-nm-tall, 170-nm-spaced pillars should tear at the pillar tip, not in the sagged span between pillars. A three-layer membrane simulation or time-resolved imaging of the same geometry could settle whether the rupture site matches the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that bacterial membranes on nanopillar arrays fail by one of two mechanisms controlled by membrane bending rigidity. For low-rigidity membranes, calibrated to gram-negative values near 15 $k_BT$, the membrane deforms locally at the pillar contact, slides and sags, and tears close to the nanopillar tip when the pillar is tall enough to suspend the bacterium; this contradicts the earlier picture that rupture occurs in the sagged region between the pillars. For high-rigidity membranes, calibrated to gram-positive values near 45 $k_BT$, the bacterium rests on the pillar tops with little deformation and survives, and only a roughly threefold increase in the imposed loading rate switches the failure mode to piercing at the contact point. Nanopillar height above a bacterium-dependent threshold and spacing below a value set by the bacterium's width are the design parameters that determine whether the tearing mode activates.

Load-bearing premise

The whole mechanism rests on the assumption that a one-particle-thick membrane tuned only to match bending rigidity, driven by an added loading-rate force, fails the same way and at the same location as a real three-layer bacterial envelope during roughly 30 minutes of contact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Surface designers can use pillar height and spacing as the controls that switch a nanopillared surface from harmless to bactericidal for flexible-walled cells.
  • For stiff-walled cells, geometry alone is not enough: the simulations require about a threefold higher loading rate to activate the piercing mechanism.
  • When pillar spacing exceeds the width of the target bacterium, cells slip between pillars and survive, so spacing must stay below that width for reliable killing.
  • Small spherical bacteria can squeeze into wider gaps more easily than large rod-shaped ones, so dense pillar arrays are needed for them.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the mechanism map implies a stiffness-selective design space: a surface could kill gram-negative pathogens while sparing gram-positive cells, a prediction testable in mixed-culture viability assays.
  • The nanosecond-scale simulation is bridged to the 30-minute contact process only by the adjustable loading rate; converting that rate into measured approach velocities and adhesion energies would make the model quantitative under realistic flow and settling conditions.
  • Because the claimed failure site for flexible membranes is the pillar tip, independently varying tip curvature while holding height and spacing fixed would directly test the mechanism against the older sagging-between-pillars picture.
  • In quiet, low-impact fluid conditions the model implies that piercing is rare, so nanopillar coatings under static incubation should be inherently more lethal to gram-negative than gram-positive bacteria, which could be checked with flow-versus-static experiments.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript combines experimental viability assays on polyimide nanopillar arrays with coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulations to study how nanopillar height, spacing, and bacterial membrane bending rigidity determine bactericidal efficacy. The simulations use a single-layer, one-particle-thick membrane model calibrated to reproduce literature values of bending rigidity via Helfrich-spectrum analysis, and a uniform body force called the loading rate is applied to the bacterium to mimic unaccounted attractive interactions. The authors report two distinct failure mechanisms: low bending rigidity membranes, representing gram-negative bacteria, tear near the nanopillar tip, while high bending rigidity membranes, representing gram-positive bacteria, are pierced at the point of contact when the loading rate is increased. They also report that increasing nanopillar height enhances bactericidal activity beyond a critical threshold and that increasing spacing reduces it; these trends are qualitatively consistent with their own experiments on E. coli/P. aeruginosa and S. aureus.

Significance. The paper introduces a computationally efficient coarse-grained membrane model that captures bacterial membrane bending rigidity, a key mechanical property in mechano-bactericidal studies, and it demonstrates in LAMMPS that membrane response to nanopillars depends on rigidity, pillar height, and spacing. The qualitative predictions—that gram-negative (low-rigidity) membranes tear near the pillar tip and are more easily killed than gram-positive (high-rigidity) membranes, and that taller pillars are more bactericidal—are consistent with the authors' own experiments, which is a genuine strength. If the mechanism can be confirmed with proper controls, it would refine the biophysical picture beyond the commonly cited sagging-between-pillars mechanism and would offer design guidance for nanopillar height and spacing. The model is implemented in a standard public MD code and the bending-rigidity calibration procedure is described in enough detail to be reproduced.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5 (Bactericidal mechanisms) and Table 1] The central claim that low bending rigidity causes tip-adjacent tearing while high bending rigidity causes contact piercing is confounded with the loading rate. In Table 1, the low-rigidity tearing cases (rows 1-3) are run at L.R. = 0.0002 eV/(m·Å), while the high-rigidity piercing case (row 7) is run at L.R. = 0.001, a five-fold increase. No low-rigidity membrane is simulated at L.R. = 0.001, and no high-rigidity membrane is simulated at L.R. = 0.0002 for longer times, so the two mechanisms could be selected by the loading rate rather than by bending rigidity. The Adhesion section (Fig. 13) further shows that changing the LJ epsilon from 0.02 to 2 or 50 switches failure from tearing to piercing, adding another uncontrolled parameter. A two-factor matrix of bending rigidity and loading rate, with at least the four corner cases, is required to attribute the mechanism to bending rigidity.
  2. [§3 (Coarse-Grained Model for Outer Fluid and Cytoplasm) and §5] The loading rate is an uncalibrated body force whose physical meaning is not established. The manuscript states that 'we use an additional force on bacteria i.e loading rate to simulate the attractive forces not accounted for using the LJ interactions,' and the membrane is modeled as a single-layer thin elastic layer with structural details neglected. The magnitude of 0.0002 eV/(m·Å) is not derived from estimates of gravity, adhesion, or hydrodynamic forces, and the paper does not justify why a membrane failure at ~1 ns corresponds to bactericidal outcomes at 30 minutes. Because the two claimed mechanisms are activated by changing this free parameter (and by changing epsilon), the simulated tearing and piercing cannot yet be confidently identified with the physical mechanisms of bactericidal action.
  3. [§5 (Figs. 14 and 15)] The claim of a threshold bending rigidity near 33.2 KbT separating tearing from survival is based on a single simulation per condition. There are no replicate runs, error bars, or sensitivity analysis for the CG model parameters. Given that the literature values themselves carry uncertainty (13±5 KbT for gram-negative, 43±5 KbT for gram-positive membranes), the threshold is within the combined uncertainty and is not statistically supported. This undermines the quantitative comparison between low- and high-rigidity bacteria.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] Table 1 lists the low-rigidity cases with B.R. = 8.2 KbT, but the text defines gram-negative membranes as 15.1 KbT; the units of L.R. in the table ('eV. mole)/(Å.grams)') are also inconsistent with the text's 'eV/(m·Å)'.
  2. [Abstract and Conclusion] The abstract and conclusion state that a threefold increase in loading rate is required for piercing, but Table 1 shows 0.001/0.0002 = 5, so the quantitative claim should be corrected.
  3. [Introduction] The name 'Xinelei et al. (9)' appears to refer to Li and Chen (ref. 9); the citation should be fixed.
  4. [Fig. 20 caption] The Fig. 20 caption contains a typo: 'his suggests' should be 'This suggests.'
  5. [References] Several references are incomplete: ref. 2 lacks journal and volume, and ref. 22 lacks publication details.
  6. [Adhesion section] The statement that ΔG_iwi = -0.0093 mJ/m^2 is 'very low compared to' -0.00963 mJ/m^2 is confusing, as the two values are nearly identical; rephrase.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Piercing mechanism is demonstrated only at a chosen 5x higher loading rate; the claimed rigidity dependence of the piercing mode is partly forced by the input, while the tearing and height/spacing trends are genuine simulation outputs.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Table 1, Case 7; 'Bactericidal mechanisms' section (Fig. 17)]
    "A threefold increase in the loading rate is required for the piercing mechanism to activate and effectively kill gram-positive bacteria. ... For killing a gram-positive bacterium we need to increase the loading rate, as shown in Fig. 17, where the piercing mechanism activates."

    The only piercing simulation is Table 1, Case 7: h=2000, B.R.=45.4, L.R.=0.001. All low-rigidity 'tearing' cases and all surviving high-rigidity cases use L.R.=0.0002, and no low-rigidity/high-LR control is reported. The conclusion that high bending rigidity 'requires' the higher loading rate therefore restates the input value chosen for the high-rigidity piercing run rather than a measured threshold. The paper's own description of LR as an ad hoc compensation force ('we use an additional force on bacteria i.e loading rate to simulate the attractive forces not accounted for using the LJ interactions') reinforces that the mechanism-selection result is partly by construction.

full rationale

The model is calibrated against independent literature values for membrane bending rigidity (13±5 and 43±5 kBT), and the tearing-vs-survival behavior across pillar height and spacing follows from the MD trajectories rather than being encoded directly in the potential, so most of the paper is not circular. The genuine circular/forced element is the piercing claim: the only high-rigidity piercing simulation uses L.R.=0.001, a 5x increase over the 0.0002 used in all low-rigidity and surviving high-rigidity cases, and no low-rigidity/high-LR control is reported. The conclusion that high bending rigidity 'requires' the higher loading rate therefore restates the chosen input value rather than a measured threshold; the 'threefold increase' in the abstract is not even the 5x ratio in Table 1. The ad hoc nature of LR is acknowledged by the authors ('we use an additional force on bacteria i.e loading rate to simulate the attractive forces not accounted for using the LJ interactions'), which makes the mechanism-selection result partly by construction. Self-citations (refs. 22-25, 36) support computational methodology and material parameters but are not load-bearing for the central mechanism; ref. 36 is used for polyimide contact angle and SEM interpretation, not to forbid alternatives.

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

The model relies on literature values for bending rigidity (independent) but introduces several hand-picked parameters: the loading rate, the LJ adhesion, and the CG potential parameters. The independence of the two failure mechanisms is partially offset by the fact that the high loading rate was chosen to induce piercing. No invented physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Bending rigidity values = 15.1, 24.8, 33.2, 40.2, 45.4 kBT
    Calibrated by trial-and-error tuning of mu and epsilon in the CG potential to match literature values (13±5 kBT gram-negative, 43±5 kBT gram-positive). These values control the failure mechanism.
  • Loading rate = 0.0002 eV/(m*Å) per CG atom; 0.001 for piercing
    Ad hoc body force representing gravity, adhesion, and hydrodynamic forces not captured by LJ; the high value is set to produce piercing.
  • LJ epsilon for membrane-nanopillar interaction = 0.02 (baseline)
    Deliberately chosen lower than experimental ΔG_iwi estimate to make the killing mechanically induced via loading rate.
  • CG fluid membrane potential parameters = e.g., 0.2, 103, 200, 4, 5, 0 for low rigidity (order unclear)
    Tuned to match bending rigidity and diffusivity; exact values for each case not provided.
  • Simulation duration = 0.5 to 1.0 ns
    Chosen to observe failure within feasible compute time; much shorter than experimental 30-minute incubation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The bacterial membrane is a thin elastic layer characterized solely by bending rigidity; internal structure neglected.
    Stated in 'Coarse-Grained Model for Bacteria's Membrane': 'the bacterial membrane is assumed to be a thin elastic layer. Its structural details are neglected'.
  • ad hoc to paper A uniform additional force (loading rate) captures the net effect of gravity, adhesion, and hydrodynamics.
    Stated in 'Coarse-Grained Model for Outer Fluid and Cytoplasm': 'we use an additional force on bacteria i.e loading rate to simulate the attractive forces not accounted for using the LJ interactions'.
  • domain assumption Real gram-negative and gram-positive membrane bending rigidities are 13±5 kBT and 43±5 kBT, respectively.
    Taken from Wong and Amir (ref 42); used as calibration targets. If wrong, the low/high rigidity classification fails.
  • standard math Helfrich relation <|h(q)|^2> = kBT/(Kc q^4) applies to this CG membrane.
    Used in Model Calibration to extract Kc from height fluctuations; standard for lipid bilayers but assumes continuum behavior at the CG scale.
  • ad hoc to paper Observed 1 ns simulation outcomes correspond to 30-minute bactericidal outcomes.
    The paper extrapolates from sub-nanosecond tearing to experimental death counts without a scaling argument.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nanopillar-Driven Antibacterial Surfaces: Elucidating Bactericidal Mechanisms and Engineering Nanostructures for Enhanced Efficacy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QTYLEY7E

@misc{pith2026250111727,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nanopillar-Driven Antibacterial Surfaces: Elucidating Bactericidal Mechanisms and Engineering Nanostructures for Enhanced Efficacy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QTYLEY7E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11727}
}
read the original abstract

Insects like dragonflies and cicadas possess nanoprotusions on their wings that rupture bacterial membranes upon contact, inspiring synthetic antibacterial surfaces mimicking this phenomenon. Designing such biomimetic surfaces requires understanding the mechanical interaction between nanopillars and bacterial membranes. However, the small scales of these interactions pose challenges. Molecular Dynamics simulations offer precise and efficient modeling at these scales. This study presents a coarse-grained membrane model to explore the mechanical responses of gram-positive and gram-negative bacterial membranes to nanopillar arrays. By varying bacterial shapes (spherical and cylindrical), membrane bending rigidity, and loading rates, we identified two distinct failure mechanisms. Low bending rigidity, typical of gram-negative bacteria, leads to tearing near nanopillar tips, contrary to prior assumptions. High bending rigidity, characteristic of gram-positive bacteria, results in puncturing at contact points. Gram-positive bacteria are more resistant, requiring a threefold increase in loading rate for effective piercing. Nanopillar height and spacing also critically impact bactericidal efficacy: greater heights enhance activity beyond a critical threshold, while increased spacing reduces efficacy. This simplified coarse-grained model, representing bacterial membranes with high fidelity, enables cost-effective, full-scale simulations over extended periods. Our findings provide essential insights for optimizing nanopillared surface designs, advancing antibacterial technology through tailored height and spacing configurations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11727 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Experimental results showing viable bacteria (gram-negative and gram-positive) with changes in nanopillar spacing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The left figure illustrates the three different compo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Coarse grained MD simulation model (a) Cylindrical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Power spectrum of height fluctuations of planar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulation of bacteria cell with low bending rigidity membrane and varying nanopillar height (a) with nanopillar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulation of bacteria cell with high bending rigidity membrane and varying nanopillar height (a) with nanopillar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulation of bacteria cell with low bending rigidity membrane and varying nanopillar spacing (a) with nanopillar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Simulation of bacteria cell with high bending rigidity membrane and varying nanopillar spacing (a) with nanopillar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Simulation of bacteria cell with low bending rigidity membrane and varying nanopillar height (a) with nanopillar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Simulation of bacteria cell with high bending rigidity membrane and varying nanopillar height (a) with nanopillar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Effect of nanopillars spacing on spherical bacte [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (a) and (b), it can be observed that with 𝜖 = 0.02 and 𝜖 = 0.2, the bacterium membrane sags between the nanopil￾lars, eventually tearing later in the simulation due to sagging. The tearing of the bacterium membrane occurs slightly later in case (a) with 𝜖 = 0.02 compa…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Effect of change in bacterial membrane’s bending [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Effect of change in bacterial membrane’s bending [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Tearing failure mechanism (a) at time = 0 ns : [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Piercing failure mechanism (a) at time = 0 ns : No [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Figure showing bactericidal effects of 800 nm long nanopillars substrate for gram-negative bacteria P. aeruginosa (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Figure showing bactericidal effects of 800 nm long nanopillars substrate for gram-positive bacteria S. aureus (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Figure showing effect of bacterial membrane bending rigidity on bactericidal effects of 800 nm long nanopillars [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_20.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ivanova, E. P., J. Hasan, H. K. Webb, V. K. Truong, G. S. Watson, J. A. Watson, V. A. Baulin, S. Pogodin, J. Y. Wang, M. J. Tobin, C. Löbbe, and R. J. Crawford,

    work page

  2. [2]

    Ivanova, E. P., J. Hasan, H. K. Webb, G. Gervinskas, S. Juodkazis, V. K. Truong, A. H. Wu, R. N. Lamb, V. A. Baulin, G. S. Watson, J. A. Watson, D. E. Mainwaring, and R. J. Crawford. Bactericidal activity of black silicon

    work page

  3. [3]

    Hasan, J., H. K. Webb, V. K. Truong, S. Pogodin, V. A. Baulin, G. S. Watson, J. A. Watson, R. J. Crawford, and E. P. Ivanova, 2013. Selective bactericidal activ- ity of nanopatterned superhydrophobic cicada Psaltoda claripennis wing surfaces.Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 97:9257–9262

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Faruqui, T

    Diu, T., N. Faruqui, T. Sjöström, B. Lamarre, H. F. Jenk- inson, B. Su, and M. G. Ryadnov, 2014. Cicada-inspired cell-instructive nanopatterned arrays.Scientific Reports 4:7122

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Sjöström, T., A. H. Nobbs, and B. Su, 2016. Bactericidal nanospike surfaces via thermal oxidation of Ti alloy substrates. Materials Letters167:22–26

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Hazell, G., P. W. May, P. Taylor, A. H. Nobbs, C. C. Welch, and B. Su, 2018. Studies of black silicon and black diamond as materials for antibacterial surfaces. Biomater. Sci.6:1424–1432

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Hasan, V

    Pogodin, S., J. Hasan, V. A. Baulin, H. K. Webb, V. K. Truong, T. H. Phong Nguyen, V. Boshkovikj, C. J. Fluke, G. S. Watson, J. A. Watson, R. J. Crawford, and E. P. Ivanova, 2013. Biophysical model of bacterial cell inter- actionswithnanopatternedcicadawingsurfaces. Biophys. J. 104:835–840. 22 Manuscript submitted to Acta Biomaterialia Acta Biomaterialia

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Xue, F., J. Liu, L. Guo, L. Zhang, and Q. Li, 2015. Theo- retical study on the bactericidal nature of nanopatterned surfaces. Journal of Theoretical Biology385:1–7

    work page 2015

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Enhancementandsuppression effects of a nanopatterned surface on bacterial adhesion

    Li,X.,andT.Chen,2016. Enhancementandsuppression effects of a nanopatterned surface on bacterial adhesion. Phys. Rev. E 93:052419. https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.93.052419

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    Advanced Materials Interfaces6:1801646

    Watson,G.S.,D.W.Green,J.A.Watson,Z.Zhou,X.Li, G.S.P.Cheung,andM.Gellender,2019.ASimpleModel for Binding and Rupture of Bacterial Cells on Nanopillar Surfaces. Advanced Materials Interfaces6:1801646

    2019

  3. [11]

    Boseman, A

    Nowlin, K., A. Boseman, A. Covell, and D. LaJe- unesse, 2015. Adhesion-dependent rupturing of Sac- charomyces cerevisiae on biological antimicrobial nanos- tructuredsurfaces. JournalofTheRoyalSocietyInterface 12:20140999

    2015

  4. [12]

    Bandara, C. D., S. Singh, I. O. Afara, A. Wolff, T. Tes- famichael, K. Ostrikov, and A. Oloyede, 2017. Bacte- ricidal effects of natural nanotopography of dragonfly wing on Escherichia coli.ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 9:6746–6760

    2017

  5. [13]

    Hazell, G., L. E. Fisher, W. A. Murray, A. H. Nobbs, and B. Su, 2018. Bioinspired bactericidal surfaces with poly- mer nanocone arrays.J. Colloid Interface Sci.528:389– 399

    2018

  6. [14]

    Silhavy, T. J., D. Kahne, and S. Walker, 2010. The bacterialcellenvelope. ColdSpringHarb.Perspect.Biol. 2:a000414

    2010

  7. [15]

    Kelleher, S. M., O. Habimana, J. Lawler, B. O’ Reilly, S. Daniels, E. Casey, and A. Cowley, 2016. Cicada wing surfacetopography:Aninvestigationintothebactericidal properties of nanostructural features.ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces8:14966–14974

    2016

  8. [16]

    Brunetti, R

    Rizzello,L.,B.Sorce,S.Sabella,G.Vecchio,A.Galeone, V. Brunetti, R. Cingolani, and P. P. Pompa, 2011. Impact of Nanoscale Topography on Genomics and Proteomics of Adherent Bacteria.ACS Nano5:1865–1876. PMID: 21344880

    2011

  9. [17]

    Galeone, G

    Rizzello, L., A. Galeone, G. Vecchio, V. Brunetti, S. Sabella, and P. P. Pompa, 2012. Molecular response of Escherichia coli adhering onto nanoscale topography. Nanoscale Res. Lett.7:575

    2012

  10. [18]

    Kang,S.,M.Herzberg,D.F.Rodrigues,andM.Elimelech,

  11. [19]

    Linklater, D. P., M. De Volder, V. A. Baulin, M. Werner, S.Jessl,M.Golozar,L.Maggini,S.Rubanov,E.Hanssen, S.Juodkazis,andE.P.Ivanova,2018. HighAspectRatio Nanostructures Kill Bacteria via Storage and Release of Mechanical Energy.ACS Nano12:6657–6667. PMID: 29851466

    2018

  12. [20]

    Linklater, D. P., S. Saita, T. Murata, T. Yanagishita, C. Dekiwadia, R. J. Crawford, H. Masuda, H. Kusaka, and E. P. Ivanova, 2022. Nanopillar Polymer Films as Antibacterial Packaging Materials.ACS Applied Nano Materials5:2578–2591

    2022

  13. [21]

    Linklater, D. P., V. A. Baulin, S. Juodkazis, R. J. Craw- ford, P. Stoodley, and E. P. Ivanova, 2021. Mechano- bactericidal actions of nanostructured surfaces.Nature Reviews Microbiology19:8–22

    2021

  14. [22]

    Guidedself-assemblyofpolyethene on graphene

    Singh,A.,andY.Li. Guidedself-assemblyofpolyethene on graphene

  15. [23]

    Fuentes-Cabrera, A

    Zhou, D., M. Fuentes-Cabrera, A. Singh, R. R. Unocic, J.M.Y.Carrillo,K.Xiao,Y.Li,andB.Li,2022. Atomic Edge-Guided Polyethylene Crystallization on Monolayer Two-Dimensional Materials.Macromolecules55:559– 567

    2022

  16. [24]

    Singh, A., M. Sun, J. Chen, B. Li, and Y. Li, 2024. Tem- plating Effect of MoSe2 on Crystallization of Polyethy- lene: A Molecular Dynamics Simulation Study.The Journal of Physical Chemistry C128:2147–2162

    2024

  17. [25]

    Li, 2023

    Singh, A., and Y. Li, 2023. Reliable machine learning potentialsbasedonartificialneuralnetworkforgraphene. Computational Materials Science227:112272

    2023

  18. [26]

    Huang, K. C., R. Mukhopadhyay, B. Wen, Z. Gitai, and N. S. Wingreen, 2008. Cell shape and cell-wall orga- nization in Gram-negative bacteria.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences105:19282–19287

    2008

  19. [27]

    Huang, P

    Salatto, D., Z. Huang, P. T. Benziger, J.-M. Y. Carrillo, Y. Bajaj, A. Gauer, L. Tsapatsaris, B. G. Sumpter, R. Li, M. Takenaka, W. Yin, D. G. Thanassi, M. Endoh, and T. Koga, 2023. Structure-Based Design of Dual Bacteri- cidalandBacteria-ReleasingNanosurfaces. ACSApplied Mate...

    2023

  20. [28]

    Hasan, Z

    Velic, A., J. Hasan, Z. Li, and P. K. D. V. Yarlagadda,

  21. [29]

    Ge, 2021

    Cui,Q.,T.Liu,X.Li,L.Zhao,Q.Wu,X.Wang,K.Song, and D. Ge, 2021. Validation of the mechano-bactericidal mechanism of nanostructured surfaces with finite ele- ment simulation.Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 206:111929

    2021

  22. [30]

    Thompson, A. P., H. M. Aktulga, R. Berger, D. S. Bolin- tineanu, W. M. Brown, P. S. Crozier, P. J. in ’t Veld, A. Kohlmeyer, S. G. Moore, T. D. Nguyen, R. Shan, M. J. Stevens, J. Tranchida, C. Trott, and S. J. Plimpton, 2022. Manuscript submitted to Acta Biomaterialia23 Akash ...

    2022

  23. [31]

    Huang, J

    Yuan, H., C. Huang, J. Li, G. Lykotrafitis, and S. Zhang,

  24. [32]

    Fu, S.-P., Z. Peng, H. Yuan, R. Kfoury, and Y.-N. Young,

  25. [33]

    Ramírez-Hinestrosa, J

    Wang, X., S. Ramírez-Hinestrosa, J. Dobnikar, and D. Frenkel, 2020. The Lennard-Jones potential: when (not) to use it.Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 22:10624–10633

    2020

  26. [34]

    G., and B

    Gay, J. G., and B. J. Berne, 1981. Modification of the overlap potential to mimic a linear site–site potential. The Journal of Chemical Physics74:3316–3319. https: //doi.org/10.1063/1.441483

    1981 doi

  27. [35]

    Everaers, R., and M. R. Ejtehadi, 2003. Interaction potentials for soft and hard ellipsoids.Phys. Rev. E 67:041710. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevE.67.041710

    2003

  28. [36]

    Cui, K.-Y

    Zhang, Y., J. Cui, K.-Y. Chen, S. H. Kuo, J. Sharma, R. Bhatta, Z. Liu, A. Ellis-Mohr, F. An, J. Li, Q. Chen, K. D. Foss, H. Wang, Y. Li, A. M. McCoy, G. W. Lau, and Q. Cao, 2023. A smart coating with inte- grated physical antimicrobial and strain-mapping func- tionalities for...

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Van Oss, C. J., R. J. Good, and M. K. Chaudhury, 1988. Additiveandnonadditivesurfacetensioncomponentsand theinterpretationofcontactangles. Langmuir4:884–891

    1988

  30. [38]

    Zahir, S

    Elfazazi, K., H. Zahir, S. Tankiouine, B. Mayoussi, C. Zanane, S. Lekchiri, M. Ellouali, E. M. Mliji, and H.Latrache,2021. AdhesionBehaviorof<i>Escherichia coli</i> Strains on Glass: Role of Cell Surface Qualita- tive and Quantitative Hydrophobicity in Their Attach- ment Abilit...

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    Fowler,P.W.,J.Hélie,A.Duncan,M.Chavent,H.Koldsø, and M. S. P. Sansom, 2016. Membrane stiffness is modified by integral membrane proteins.Soft Matter 12:7792–7803

    2016

  32. [40]

    Elastic properties of lipid bilayers: theory and possible experiments

    Helfrich, W., 1973. Elastic properties of lipid bilayers: theory and possible experiments. Z. Naturforsch. C 28:693–703

    1973

  33. [41]

    version 7.10.0 (R2010a)

    MATLAB, 2010. version 7.10.0 (R2010a). The Math- Works Inc., Natick, Massachusetts

    2010

  34. [42]

    Amir, 2019

    Wong, F., and A. Amir, 2019. Mechanics and dynamics of bacterial cell lysis.Biophys. J.116:2378–2389. 24 Manuscript submitted to Acta Biomaterialia

    2019

  35. [2008]

    Antibacterialeffectsofcarbonnanotubes:sizedoes matter! Langmuir 24:6409–6413

  36. [2010]

    One-particle-thick, solvent-free, coarse-grained model for biological and biomimetic fluid membranes. Phys. Rev. E 82:011905. https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.82.011905

    doi

  37. [2012]

    Natural bactericidal surfaces: mechanical rupture of Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells by cicada wings.Small 8:2489–2494

  38. [2017]

    ComputerPhysicsCommunications 210:193– 203

    Lennard-Jones type pair-potential method for coarse-grained lipid bilayer membrane simulations in LAMMPS. ComputerPhysicsCommunications 210:193– 203

  39. [2021]

    J.120:217–231

    Mechanics of bacterial interaction and death on nanopatterned surfaces.Biophys. J.120:217–231

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.