Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 59 references

QuantumDNA: A Python Package for Analyzing Quantum Charge Dynamics in DNA and Exploring Its Biological Relevance

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read QuantumDNA maps DNA structures to charge-transfer predictions

desk verdict Useful, honest software paper whose 'accurate' claim outruns its validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06883 v1 pith:ABN2B24Y submitted 2025-02-08 q-bio.BM physics.bio-phphysics.comp-phquant-ph

Dennis Herb , Marco Trenti , Marilena Mantela , Constantinos Simserides , Joachim Ankerhold , Mirko Rossini This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.BMphysics.bio-phphysics.comp-phquant-ph
keywords DNAchargetransfertight-bindingmodelsLCAOSlater-KostermethodLindbladmasterequationexcitondynamicsopenquantumsystemsPythonpackageTERTpromotermutations
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

QuantumDNA is an open-source Python package that simulates charge transfer and excited-state dynamics along DNA. The paper's central claim is that a pipeline combining LCAO-derived electronic couplings, coarse-grained tight-binding models, and Lindblad master equations can turn atomic DNA structures into quantitative predictions of hole, electron, and exciton motion quickly enough for large-scale sequence screening. The authors validate the pipeline by reproducing published results on ultrafast exciton dynamics, the crossover from tunneling to thermally activated hopping, and environment-induced decoherence. They then apply it to two melanoma-associated TERT promoter mutations and find that C228T shortens exciton lifetimes on one strand and lengthens them on the other, while C250T generally lengthens lifetimes, while explicitly labeling these findings preliminary. If the accuracy claim holds, the package gives biologists and clinicians a reusable bridge from DNA sequence and structure to quantum-dynamics observables.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the LCAO computation of interbase couplings: molecular orbitals are built as linear combinations of valence atomic orbitals, and the couplings are Slater-Koster two-center transfer integrals with a quadratic decay inside a base and an exponential decay, with $d_0 = 1.35$ Å, between bases, using fitted constants $C_\chi$ from the default MSF parametrization. These couplings parameterize tight-binding Hamiltonians at several resolutions, from wire to extended-ladder to fishbone models. Environmental effects enter through Lindblad operators for local or global dephasing, thermalization, and site-wise exciton recombination into the ground state. The key observables are the exciton lifetime, defined as the first time at which the ground-state population reaches $1 - 1/e$, and the mean electron-hole separation, obtained from a dipole operator. This chain from geometry to Hamiltonian to master equation to observable is what carries the argument.

What would settle it

Compute the interbase transfer integrals $t_{AB}$ with a higher-level electronic-structure method for the same atomic coordinates used by QuantumDNA in a mutated or distorted case, such as the TERT C228T or C250T sequence, and compare with the package's LCAO values; systematic deviations large enough to change the predicted exciton lifetime beyond the model's spread would falsify the transferability claim. A pump-probe experiment on a mutated versus wild-type oligonucleotide could then test the predicted lifetime shift directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single software platform can integrate the whole chain: Slater-Koster two-center integrals evaluated from atomic coordinates, a family of coarse-grained tight-binding models, Lindblad dissipators for dephasing, thermalization, and exciton recombination, and observables such as exciton lifetime and electron-hole separation. The paper asserts that this integration is accurate enough to reproduce published benchmarks and fast enough to scan all 16,384 seven-base-pair sequences, as was done in prior work. The TERT promoter example is presented as a first biological application: mutation-dependent exciton-lifetime changes appear near the mutation site, but the authors caution that the results do not validate a quantum influence on melanoma mechanisms.

Load-bearing premise

The entire accuracy claim rests on the fitted Slater-Koster constants $C_\chi$ remaining valid for arbitrary sequences, mutated bases, and PDB-derived geometries, and the paper gives no independent check of that transferability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A user can go from a PDB or XYZ structure to simulated transfer integrals, populations, exciton lifetimes, and dipole moments with a few lines of Python or through the GUI.
  • Published one-off models, including ultrafast exciton dynamics, the tunneling-to-hopping crossover, and dephasing-induced coherence loss, become reproducible building blocks inside one package.
  • Sequence ensembles large enough for statistical studies, such as all 16,384 seven-base-pair sequences, can be screened for electronic properties rather than studied one at a time.
  • Targeted mutations in real structures, such as the TERT promoter mutations, can be screened for their effect on exciton lifetimes before expensive ab initio or experimental follow-up.
  • The choice among wire, ladder, extended-ladder, and fishbone models lets users trade resolution against computational cost for the system at hand.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the fitted Slater-Koster constants transfer to arbitrary sequences and mutated geometries, the package could serve as a pre-filter that ranks DNA regions by electronic response before costlier calculations; the paper does not itself establish that transferability.
  • The single-exciton constraint keeps the Hilbert space quadratic in chain length, so the results apply to dilute photoexcitation; intense excitation or multi-exciton processes are out of scope and would need a larger state space.
  • The TERT lifetime pattern suggests a testable experimental prediction: short mutated oligonucleotides with C228T or C250T should show strand-dependent lifetime shifts in pump-probe experiments, although the paper presents the pattern as exploratory.
  • Quantitative biological conclusions will also depend on environmental parameters like dephasing and relaxation rates; the defaults are a convenient starting point rather than a validated model of the cellular environment.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents QuantumDNA, an open-source Python package that computes DNA charge-transfer and exciton-dynamics observables by combining an LCAO parameterization based on Slater-Koster two-center integrals (Section 4.1, Eqs. (2)-(3)) with tight-binding models at several resolutions (wire, ladder, extended ladder, fishbone variants, Fig. A2) and open-quantum-system dynamics via Lindblad master equations (Section 4.3, Eq. (10)). The package accepts PDB or XYZ geometries, offers a GUI, and is validated by three benchmark examples: the ultrafast excitonic dynamics after Bittner (Fig. 7), the superexchange-to-hopping crossover after Giese and Simserides (Fig. 8), and dephasing effects after Rossini et al. (Fig. 9), plus a preliminary biological application to the TERT promoter mutations C228T and C250T (Section 5.4, Fig. 10). The Abstract claims that the approach allows 'rapid yet accurate analysis of large DNA ensembles, enabling statistical studies of genetic and epigenetic phenomena.' The paper's central assertion is therefore that QuantumDNA is both efficient and quantitatively trustworthy for the PDB-to-LCAO-to-TB workflow it advertises.

Significance. The package fills a genuine niche: it appears to be the first documented, open-source toolkit that takes atomic-resolution DNA structures through LCAO-derived parameters and Lindblad dynamics to observables such as exciton lifetimes, dipole moments, and site-resolved populations, and it lowers the entry barrier with a GUI and tutorial notebooks. I explicitly credit the following strengths: the code is publicly available under a BSD-3 license with documentation at quantumdna.readthedocs.io and separate tutorial notebooks; the qualitative reproductions of Bittner's dynamics (Fig. 7) and of the Giese superexchange-hopping crossover (Fig. 8) are genuine evidence that the implementation runs and captures the expected physics; the high-throughput capability is demonstrated in the companion work Ref. [16] over all 16,384 seven-base-pair sequences; and the authors candidly state in Section 5.4 that the TERT results are 'not intended to validate' the biological effect.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Eqs. (2)-(3); §5.1-5.3; Abstract] The Abstract's 'rapid yet accurate' claim is unvalidated for the default MSF LCAO path, and the stress-test concern that the benchmarks bypass this path lands. None of the three benchmark examples in Section 5 exercises the default MSF parametrization: Section 5.1 uses the Bittner2007 source, Section 5.2 uses the Simserides2014 source and is explicitly 'qualitative' in both the Fig. 8 caption and the text, and Section 5.3 uses the Hawke2010/Rossini setup. The only example that runs the MSF path, the 1BNA GUI workflow in Section 3.1 and Fig. 4(d), outputs population heatmaps with no quantitative comparison to reference transfer integrals, orbital energies, or experimental observables. Because the constants C_chi are fitted to a limited set of bases and ideal geometries, their transferability to arbitrary sequences, mutated bases (as used in Section 5.4), and non-ideal PDB geometries is the load-bearing assumption behind the word 'accurate,' and the manuscript supplies no evidence that errors on the order of 100 meV in t_HOMO or epsilon_HOMO are excluded for mutated bases. I request a quantitative benchmark comparing MSF-derived t_HOMO, t_LUMO, epsilon_HOMO, and epsilon_LUMO with the ab initio and experimental values used in the fit of Ref. [26], plus a numerical error metric for the Fig. 7 reproduction against the original Bittner results [17].
  2. [§5, Figs. 8-9; Table A3] A large fraction of the validation is self-referential, which is a correctness risk rather than an accusation of misconduct: the default MSF parameterization (Ref. [26], Mantela et al.), the Simserides2014 benchmark source [53], and the Ref. [40] benchmark all originate from the present or closely overlapping authors, so agreement between package output and those published results can be inherited from shared code and fitted constants rather than from physical correctness. The only independently grounded element is the qualitative crossover of Fig. 8, eventually traceable to the Giese experiments [24]. A concrete test that would resolve the risk is to overlay the package's donor/acceptor population ratios with the measured rate ratios from Giese et al. [24] rather than only the crossover shape, or to compare MSF-LCAO parameters against independent electronic-structure calculations from groups not involved in the package, such as Kubař and Elstner [44] or Gutiérrez et al. [45, 46]. The paper currently does not provide the data needed for either check.
  3. [§4.4, Eqs. (11)-(12); §5.4, Fig. 10] The headline observables are controlled by ad hoc rates that are never anchored to data, and the TERT application in Section 5.4 inherits them. The exciton lifetime T is defined through the decay rate gamma_alpha in Eqs. (11)-(12), yet relax_rate = 3 rad/ps in the Section 3.1 example, deph_rate = 7 in Table A2, and loc_deph_rate = 2 in Section 5.3 are presented without justification against the measured excited-state lifetimes of Kohler et al. [18] or against the correlated dynamics of Ref. [16]. Since Fig. 10 plots differences in lifetime between mutant and natural sequences, those differences could be artifacts of the chosen gamma_alpha and of the free parameters J0, K0 in Eqs. (6)-(7); the paper itself concedes in Section 5.4 that the results are not intended to validate the biological effect. To make the TERT example evidential rather than illustrative, the authors should report absolute lifetimes, scan gamma_alpha and J0/K0 over a plausible range, and compare the resulting intervals with experimentally measured DNA excited-state lifetimes. In its present form, the TERT section supports 'the package can run' but not 'the package is accurate.'
minor comments (7)
  1. [§3.1] The sentence 'as recently investigated by Kordas et al.' contains no citation; add the reference or remove the attribution.
  2. [§4.2.1, Eqs. (6)-(7)] The justification for the nearest-neighbor Coulomb cutoff ('the thermal energy at 300 K... equals the Coulomb energy at the base-stacking distance D') implicitly uses the model's own J0, which is a free parameter whose default is 0 in Table A2; either derive the numerical comparison explicitly or present the cutoff as a modeling choice.
  3. [Table A2 and Table A3] There is an apparent tension between the default 'parametrization' (MSF) and the default 'source' (Hawke2010), and between Table A3's statement that Mantela2021 is limited to the WM/base-pair level and the Section 3.1 demo, which generates ELM single-base parameters from the 1BNA PDB; clarify which parameterization actually produces the single-base ELM parameters in that demo.
  4. [§4.2.2, Eq. (9)] The index beta in Eq. (9) is never defined (presumably it labels the initial state), and the sentence 'the first term represents the time-averaged population for non-degenerate eigenenergies' glosses over the degenerate case; please define beta explicitly and state the degenerate-case formula or restrict the stated result.
  5. [§5.4, Fig. 10 caption] The plotted quantity is not fully specified: the caption says 'variation in lifetime' and 'differences between the lifetimes,' but the sign convention (mutant minus natural) and the color scale are not defined; please state them in the caption.
  6. [§4.3, Fig. A3] The claim that Lindblad models are 'an efficient choice' is in tension with the scaling reported in Fig. A3 for the global thermalizing model (N^4 - N^2 operators); add a sentence noting the regime of applicability of each model.
  7. [§1, first paragraph] There is a typo: 'amd' should be 'and'; also, the Abstract and the Introduction use different phrasings ('quantum physical methods' vs. 'quantum physics methods'), which should be harmonized.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the LCAO parameters are transparently fitted and cited, the benchmark sections are implementation checks, and the TERT study is explicitly preliminary, so no output reduces to a fitted input by construction.

full rationale

QuantumDNA is a software and parameter-transfer paper rather than a first-principles derivation, and none of its claimed outputs is asserted to follow from an input in a way that would make a benchmark equal to its own fit. The LCAO constants in Eqs. (2) and (3) are explicitly fitted: the paper states that 'The constants C_chi are determined by fitting the method to experimental and ab initio results,' and the default MSF parametrization is imported by citation from Mantela et al. [26]. This is transparent reuse of externally fitted parameters, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The benchmarking examples are implementation checks: Section 5.1 reproduces Bittner's externally published model using the Bittner2007 parameter source; Section 5.2 labels the plot 'Originally presented in [53], this result was reproduced using QuantumDNA' and anchors the physics to Giese's external experiments; Section 5.3 reproduces the authors' Lindblad analysis but relies on standard dephasing and thermalization models with independent references [48, 49, 50]. The TERT mutation section is explicitly declared preliminary: 'The results presented at this stage are not intended to validate an effective quantum influence... but rather to provide an example (currently under investigation),' so it is not presented as a prediction that must be independent of its fitted inputs. The genuine weakness, that the transferability of the MSF C_chi constants to arbitrary mutated sequences and PDB geometries is not validated against independent ab initio or experimental targets, and that several benchmark sources overlap with the author list, is a validation and correctness gap, not a circular one: no equation in the paper makes a claimed output equal to a fitted input by construction, and no load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-citation alone.

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

The model chain rests on several fitted or hand-set parameters: the Slater-Koster constants C_chi (fit in Ref. [26]), a recombination rate of 3 rad/ps, a default dephasing rate of 7, Coulomb/exchange amplitudes set by the user, and length scales r0 and d0. The physical axioms include pi-stack-mediated transfer, Lindblad-type environments, a single-exciton constraint, and a nearest-neighbor Coulomb cutoff justified by an order-of-magnitude energy comparison.

free parameters (6)
  • C_chi (Slater-Koster interaction constants) = Fitted to experimental and ab initio data in Ref. [26] (MSF parametrization)
    Used in Eqs. (2)-(3) to compute all transfer integrals from atomic geometry; values are not re-derived or uncertainty-quantified in this paper.
  • relax_rate (gamma_alpha) = 3 rad/ps in examples; default 0
    Section 3.1 and 4.4: the exciton recombination rate is a tunable parameter with no experimental calibration presented; directly controls the lifetime observable defined by Eq. (12).
  • deph_rate = 7 (default, Table A2)
    Default local/global dephasing rate; strongly shapes the coherence decay in Fig. 9, yet its physical basis is not justified in the paper.
  • J0 and K0 (coulomb_param, exchange_param) = User-set; examples use 2.5/1 and 1/1
    Coulomb and exchange amplitudes in Eqs. (6)-(7) are input parameters; the lifetime and dipole observables depend on them, and no sensitivity or calibration is reported.
  • r0 (electron-hole separation decay scale) = 1.0 Angstrom
    Assumed electron-hole separation decay scale within a base (Section 4.2.1); adopted from Bittner, not independently measured.
  • d0 (bonding distance in Harrison expressions) = 1.35 Angstrom
    Typical bonding distance in Eq. (3); controls interbase overlap decay and hence all interbase couplings.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Charge transfer in DNA occurs predominantly through pi-stacked nucleobases via HOMO/LUMO overlaps; the sugar-phosphate backbone can be removed and its influence represented indirectly in environmental parameters.
    Section 3.1: preprocessing removes backbone atoms; Section 4.2: TB sites are bases/base pairs. If backbone-mediated CT is significant, fishbone models are only partial corrections and the default removal is inaccurate.
  • domain assumption The Slater-Koster two-center integral expressions with quadratic (intrabase) and exponential (interbase) decays, with d0=1.35 Angstrom, provide accurate electronic couplings for arbitrary DNA geometries.
    Section 4.1, Eqs. (2)-(3): adopted from Refs. [29,26]; all package parameters derive from this form, which is fitted rather than derived.
  • domain assumption The environment is adequately described by Lindblad operators with dephasing, thermalization, and a single-site exciton recombination channel at rate gamma_alpha.
    Section 4.3 and Eq. (11): the Lindblad approach is chosen for efficiency; the paper refers to Ref. [48] for benchmarking but provides no direct validation of these rates against experiment.
  • ad hoc to paper At most one exciton is present in the system at any time, so the Hilbert space scales as |Lambda|^2.
    Section 4.2.1: this constraint excludes multi-exciton states and electron-hole pair creation beyond one, a simplification not derived from physical conditions.
  • ad hoc to paper Coulomb interaction can be cut off at nearest-neighboring bases because the thermal energy at 300 K (about 0.3 eV) equals the Coulomb energy at stacking distance D.
    Section 4.2.1: the equality of two energies of different origin is used to justify a truncation; the argument is order-of-magnitude rather than a rigorous derivation.
  • domain assumption The standard B-DNA geometry with fixed interbase distance D=3.4 Angstrom remains valid for the mutated sequences studied.
    Section 5.4: TERT mutations are modeled by changing base identity in a 14-base ELM without re-optimizing geometry; the PDB-derived geometry is used for all sequences.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QuantumDNA: A Python Package for Analyzing Quantum Charge Dynamics in DNA and Exploring Its Biological Relevance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ABN2B24Y

@misc{pith2026250206883,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QuantumDNA: A Python Package for Analyzing Quantum Charge Dynamics in DNA and Exploring Its Biological Relevance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ABN2B24Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06883}
}
read the original abstract

The study of DNA charge dynamics is a highly interdisciplinary field that bridges physics, chemistry, biology, and medicine, and plays a critical role in processes such as DNA damage detection, protein-DNA interactions, and DNA-based nanotechnology. However, despite significant advances in each of these areas, knowledge often remains inaccessible to other scientific communities, limiting the broader impact of advances across disciplines. To bridge this gap, we present QuantumDNA, an open-source Python package for simulating DNA charge transfer (CT) and excited states using quantum-physical methods. QuantumDNA combines an efficient Linear Combination of Atomic Orbitals (LCAO) approach with tight-binding (TB) models, incorporating open quantum systems techniques to account for environmental effects. This approach allows rapid yet accurate analysis of large DNA ensembles, enabling statistical studies of genetic and epigenetic phenomena. To ensure accessibility, the package features a graphical user interface (GUI), making it suitable for researchers across disciplines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06883 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. The QuantumDNA logo. The blue waves symbolise the wave-like behaviour of particles inherent in quantum mechanics, while also representing the iconic structure of the DNA double helix. 3.1. Workflow Structure The QuantumDNA package can be easily installed using the Python pip installer with the following com￾mand: 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic overview of the field of DNA-mediated coherent CT and DNA photophysics. (a) A photoexcited redox molecule oxidizes a DNA base (donor), creating a hole (orange). The hole can move coherently along the DNA helix and oxidize a downstream acceptor molecule. Similarly, the reduction of a DNA base can produce an excess electron that follows the same migration mechanism. (b) (Left) Illumination of DNA produces an… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic overview of the structure of the QuantumDNA package. (Blue) A TB model is selected and tuned to generate the TB Hamiltonian describing the isolated DNA system via the class TB Ham. (Red) Lindblad operators are introduced to account for system-bath interactions induced by the DNA environment, including electron-hole recombination, via the class Lind Diss. (Grey) The TB Hamiltonian and Lindblad operators are… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Quantum-physical simulations with real DNA geometries via the GUI. (a) A PDB file containing the DNA geometry was obtained from rcsb.org (identifier: 1BNA) and modified using Biovia Discovery Studio [27] by removing the sugar-phosphate backbone. The subsequence selecte…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of the calculation of Slater-Koster two-center transfer integrals for the LCAO method. The tuples represent the α AO for the i th atom. The intrabase AO overlap decreases quadratically with the two-center distance d as described by Harrison [36, 37]. The d…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: From the DNA molecule to TB modeling. (a) The chemical structure of the upper strand of the DNA sequence 5’-CAG-3’, including the sugar-phosphate backbone, is shown. Each DNA nucleobase is simplified to its highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and lowest unoccupie…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Electron, hole and excitonic dynamics over a DNA modeled TB lattice for 300 fs. In the plots, an electron-hole pair is first generated over the fifth adenine of an ELM consisting of 10 adenine bases and their opposite thymine bases, following the modeling and parameter…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Semi-logarithmic plot of the time-averaged hole population ratios at the donor (G23) and acceptor (GGG) sites. The sequences analyzed follow the format ’[tail] G23 - bridge - GGG [tail]’ with variable bridge lengths composed of TTGTT repeats, inspired by experiments fr…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Population and coherence dynamics of a hole (left) and an electron (right) in a DNA TB model. The plots illustrate the particle dynamics over a Ladder Model (LM) representation of a GCACG DNA strand under three different conditions: isolated system (unitary evolution),…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Effect of TERT sequence mutations on the average exciton lifetime across the DNA strand. The heatmaps illustrate how exciton lifetimes change when the C228T and C250T mutations occur in the TERT promoter region, as described in [55, 56, 57]. Each site on the heatmap r…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    D. Herb, M. Rossini, J. Ankerhold, Ultrafast excitonic dy- namics in DNA: Bridging correlated quantum dynamics and sequence dependence, Physical Review E 109 (2024) 064413. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.109.064413

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.109.064413 2024

  2. [26]

    Mantela, C

    M. Mantela, C. Simserides, R. D. Felice, LCAO electronic structure of nucleic acid bases and other heterocycles and transfer integrals in B-DNA, including structural variability, Materials 14 (2021) 4930. doi:10.3390/ma14174930

    work page doi:10.3390/ma14174930 2021

  3. [17]

    E. R. Bittner, Lattice theory of ultrafast excitonic and charge- transfer dynamics in DNA, Journal of Chemical Physics 125 (2006) 094909. doi:10.1063/1.2335452

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2335452 2006

  4. [53]

    Simserides, A systematic study of electron or hole transfer along DNA dimers, trimers and polymers, Chemical Physics 440 (2014) 31–41

    C. Simserides, A systematic study of electron or hole transfer along DNA dimers, trimers and polymers, Chemical Physics 440 (2014) 31–41. doi:10.1016/j.chemphys.2014.05. 024

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chemphys.2014.05 2014

  5. [40]

    Effect of environmental noise on charge diffusion in DNA: Towards modeling its potential epigenetic impact in live processes

    M. Rossini, O. Ammerpohl, R. Siebert, J. Ankerhold, Ef- fect of environmental noise on charge di ffusion in dna: To- wards modeling its potential epigenetic impact in live pro- cesses (2024). doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.14252

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.14252 2024

  6. [24]

    Giese, J

    B. Giese, J. Amaudrut, A. K ¨ohler, et al., Direct observation of hole transfer through DNA by hopping between adenine bases and by tunnelling, Nature 412 (2001) 318–320. doi: 10.1038/35085542

    work page doi:10.1038/35085542 2001

  7. [44]

    Kuba ˇr, M

    T. Kuba ˇr, M. Elstner, What Governs the Charge Transfer in DNA? The Role of DNA Conformation and Environment, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 112 (2008) 8788–8798. doi:10.1021/jp803661f

    work page doi:10.1021/jp803661f 2008

  8. [18]

    Crespo-Hernandez, B

    C. Crespo-Hernandez, B. Cohen, B. Kohler, Base stacking controls excited-state dynamics in A·T DNA, Nature 436 (2005) 1141–1144. doi:10.1038/nature03933

    work page doi:10.1038/nature03933 2005

Show all 59 references
  1. [1]

    D. D. Eley, D. I. Spivey, Semiconductivity of organic sub- stances. Part 9.—Nucleic acid in the dry state, Trans. Faraday Soc. 58 (1962) 411–415. doi:10.1039/TF9625800411

    1962 doi

  2. [2]

    J. J. Ladik, Quantum Theory of DNA Summary of Results and Study Program, Elsevier, 1973. doi:10.1016/s0065-3276(08)60569-9 . URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0065-3276(08) 60569-9

    1973 doi

  3. [3]

    L ¨owdin, Proton Tunneling in DNA and its Biologi- cal Implications, Rev

    P.-O. L ¨owdin, Proton Tunneling in DNA and its Biologi- cal Implications, Rev. Mod. Phys. 35 (1963) 724. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.35.724

    1963 doi

  4. [4]

    E. M. Boon, J. K. Barton, Charge transport in DNA, Cur- rent Opinion in Structural Biology 12 (2002) 320–329. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-440X(02)00327-5

    2002 doi

  5. [5]

    Giese, Long-distance electron transfer through dna, An- nual Review of Biochemistry 71 (1) (2002) 51–70

    B. Giese, Long-distance electron transfer through dna, An- nual Review of Biochemistry 71 (1) (2002) 51–70. doi: 10.1146/annurev.biochem.71.083101.134037

    2002

  6. [6]

    J. C. Genereux, J. K. Barton, Mechanisms for DNA charge transport, Chemical Reviews 110 (2010) 1642–1662. doi: 10.1021/cr900228f

    2010 doi

  7. [7]

    Crespo-Hernandez, B

    C. Crespo-Hernandez, B. Cohen, P. Hare, B. Kohler, Ultrafast Excited-State Dynamics in Nucleic Acids, Chem. Rev. 104 (2004) 1977–2020

    2004

  8. [8]

    C. T. Middleton, K. de La Harpe, C. Su, Y . K. Law, C. E. Crespo-Hern´andez, B. Kohler, Dna excited-state dynamics: From single bases to the double helix, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 60 (2009) 217–239. doi:10.1146/ annurev.physchem.59.032607.093719

    2009 arXiv

  9. [9]

    W. J. Schreier, P. Gilch, W. Zinth, Early Events of DNA Photodamage, Annual Review of Physi- cal Chemistry 66 (2015) 497–519. doi:10.1146/ annurev-physchem-040214-121821

    2015

  10. [10]

    Albuquerque, U

    E. Albuquerque, U. Fulco, V . Freire, E. Caetano, M. Lyra, F. De Moura, DNA-based nanobiostructured devices: The role of quasiperiodicity and correlation e ffects, Physics Re- ports 535 (2014) 139–209. doi:10.1016/j.physrep. 2013.10.004

    2014 doi

  11. [11]

    Wang, DNA-Based Single-Molecule Electronics: From Concept to Function, Journal of Functional Biomaterials 9 (2018) 8

    K. Wang, DNA-Based Single-Molecule Electronics: From Concept to Function, Journal of Functional Biomaterials 9 (2018) 8. doi:10.3390/jfb9010008

    2018 doi

  12. [12]

    Siebert, O

    R. Siebert, O. Ammerpohl, M. Rossini, D. Herb, S. Rau, M. Plenio, F. Jelezko, J. Ankerhold, A quantum physics layer of epigenetics: a hypothesis deduced from charge transfer and chirality-induced spin selectivity of DNA, Clin. Epigenet. 15 (2023) 145. doi:10.1186/s13148-023-01560-3

    2023 doi

  13. [13]

    P. J. Dandliker, R. E. Holmlin, J. K. Barton, Oxidative Thymine Dimer Repair in the DNA Helix, Science 275 (1997) 1465–1468. doi:10.1126/science.275.5305.1465

    1997

  14. [14]

    P. J. Dandliker, M. E. N ´u˜nez, J. K. Barton, Oxidative Charge Transfer To Repair Thymine Dimers and Damage Guanine Bases in DNA Assemblies Containing Tethered Metalloin- tercalators, Biochemistry 37 (1998) 6491–6502. doi:10. 1021/bi980041w

    1998

  15. [15]

    D. S. Goodsell, The molecular perspective: Ultraviolet light and pyrimidine dimers, The Oncologist 6 (2001) 298–299. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.6-3-298

    2001 doi

  16. [19]

    J. D. Watson, F. H. C. Crick, Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid, Nature 171 (1953) 737–738. doi:10.1038/171737a0

    1953 doi

  17. [20]

    Trixler, Quantum Tunnelling to the Origin and Evolution of Life, Current Organic Chemistry 17 (2013) 1758–1770

    F. Trixler, Quantum Tunnelling to the Origin and Evolution of Life, Current Organic Chemistry 17 (2013) 1758–1770. doi: 10.2174/13852728113179990083

    2013 doi

  18. [21]

    C. J. Murphy, M. R. Arkin, Y . Jenkins, N. D. Ghatlia, S. H. Bossmann, N. J. Turro, J. K. Barton, Long-Range Photoin- duced Electron Transfer Through a DNA Helix, Science 262 (1993) 1025–1029. doi:10.1126/science.7802858

    1993 doi

  19. [22]

    A. R. Arnold, M. A. Grodick, J. K. Barton, DNA Charge Transport: from Chemical Principles to the Cell, Cell Chemical Biology 23 (2016) 183–197. doi:10.1016/j. chembiol.2015.11.010

    2016 doi

  20. [23]

    T. J. Zwang, E. C. M. Tse, J. K. Barton, Sensing DNA through DNA Charge Transport, ACS Chemical Biology 13 (2018) 1799–1809. doi:10.1021/acschembio.8b00347

    2018 doi

  21. [25]

    Takaya, C

    T. Takaya, C. Su, K. de La Harpe, C. E. Crespo-Hern ´andez, B. Kohler, Uv excitation of single dna and rna strands pro- duces high yields of exciplex states between two stacked bases, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (2008) 10285–10290. doi:10.1073/pnas.0802079105

    2008 doi

  22. [27]

    BIOVIA, Dassault Syst `emes, Discovery studio visualizer, re- lease 2016 (2016)

    2016

  23. [28]

    H. R. Drew, R. M. Wing, T. Takano, C. Broka, S. Tanaka, K. Itakura, R. E. Dickerson, Structure of a b-dna dodecamer: conformation and dynamics., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 78 (1981) 2179–2183. doi:10.1073/ pnas.78.4.2179

    1981

  24. [29]

    L. G. D. Hawke, G. Kalosakas, C. Simserides, Electronic pa- rameters for charge transfer along DNA, The European Phys- ical Journal E 32 (2010) 291–305. doi:10.1140/EPJE/ I2010-10650-Y

    2010 doi

  25. [30]

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, F. Nori, Qutip: An open- source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Computer Physics Communications 183 (8) (2012) 1760–1772. doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2012.02.021

    2012 doi

  26. [31]

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, F. Nori, Qutip 2: A python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Com- 15 puter Physics Communications 184 (4) (2013) 1234–1240. doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2012.11.019

    2013 doi

  27. [32]

    E. R. Bittner, Frenkel exciton model of ultrafast excited state dynamics in AT DNA double helices, Journal of Photochem- istry and Photobiology A: Chemistry 190 (2007) 328–334. doi:10.1016/j.jphotochem.2006.12.007

    2007 doi

  28. [33]

    R. G. Endres, D. L. Cox, R. R. P. Singh, Electronic proper- ties of DNA: structural and chemical influence on the quest for high conductance and charge transfer (2002). arXiv: cond-mat/0201404. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0201404

    2002 arXiv

  29. [34]

    Mantela, K

    M. Mantela, K. Lambropoulos, C. Simserides, Charge trans- port properties of ideal and natural DNA segments, as mu- tation detectors, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 25 (2023) 7750–7762. doi:10.1039/D3CP00268C

    2023 doi

  30. [35]

    J. C. Slater, G. F. Koster, Simplified LCAO Method for the Periodic Potential Problem, Phys. Rev. 94 (1954) 1498–1524. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.94.1498

    1954 doi

  31. [36]

    Harrison, Electronic Structure and the Properties of Solids: The Physics of the Chemical Bond, 2nd Edition, Dover, New York, NY , USA, 1989

    W. Harrison, Electronic Structure and the Properties of Solids: The Physics of the Chemical Bond, 2nd Edition, Dover, New York, NY , USA, 1989

    1989

  32. [37]

    Harrison, Elementary Electronic Structure, World Scien- tific, River Edge, NJ, USA, 1999

    W. Harrison, Elementary Electronic Structure, World Scien- tific, River Edge, NJ, USA, 1999

    1999

  33. [38]

    Chakraboty, Charge Migration in DNA: Perspectives from Physics, Chemistry, and Biology, Springer, Berlin, Heidel- berg, 2007

    T. Chakraboty, Charge Migration in DNA: Perspectives from Physics, Chemistry, and Biology, Springer, Berlin, Heidel- berg, 2007

    2007

  34. [39]

    Lambropoulos, C

    K. Lambropoulos, C. Simserides, Tight-binding modeling of nucleic acid sequences: Interplay between various types of order or disorder and charge transport, Symmetry 11 (2019). doi:10.3390/sym11080968

    2019 doi

  35. [41]

    P. W. K. Rothemund, Folding DNA to create nanoscale shapes and patterns, Nature 440 (2006) 297–302. doi:10.1038/ nature04586

    2006

  36. [42]

    Lambropoulos, M

    K. Lambropoulos, M. Chatzieleftheriou, A. Morphis, K. Kak- lamanis, R. Lopp, M. Theodorakou, M. Tassi, C. Sim- serides, Electronic structure and carrier transfer in B-DNA monomer polymers and dimer polymers: Stationary and time- dependent aspects of a wire model versus an exte...

    2016 doi

  37. [43]

    Lambropoulos, K

    K. Lambropoulos, K. Kaklamanis, A. Morphis, M. Tassi, R. Lopp, G. Georgiadis, M. Theodorakou, M. Chatzieleft- heriou, C. Simserides, Wire and extended ladder model pre- dict THz oscillations in DNA monomers, dimers and trimers, Journal of Physics Condensed Matter 28 (2016) 495...

    2016 doi

  38. [45]

    Guti ´errez, R

    R. Guti ´errez, R. A. Caetano, B. P. Woiczikowski, T. Kubar, M. Elstner, G. Cuniberti, Charge transport through biomolec- ular wires in a solvent: Bridging molecular dynamics and model hamiltonian approaches, Physical Review Letters 102 (2009) 208102. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.1...

    2009 doi

  39. [46]

    Guti ´errez, R

    R. Guti ´errez, R. Caetano, P. B. Woiczikowski, T. Kubar, M. Elstner, G. Cuniberti, Structural fluctuations and quantum transport through DNA molecular wires: A combined molec- ular dynamics and model hamiltonian approach, New Journal of Physics 12 (2010) 023022. doi:10.1088/1...

    2010 doi

  40. [47]

    Caldeira, A

    A. Caldeira, A. Leggett, Quantum tunnelling in a dissipative system, Annals of Physics 149 (2) (1983) 374–456. doi: 10.1016/0003-4916(83)90202-6

    1983 doi

  41. [48]

    Abbott, Quantum dynamics of bath influenced excitonic energy transfer in photosynthetic pigment-protein complexes, Ph.D

    J. Abbott, Quantum dynamics of bath influenced excitonic energy transfer in photosynthetic pigment-protein complexes, Ph.D. thesis, University of Bristol (2020). doi:10.5281/ zenodo.7229807

    2020

  42. [49]

    Bourne Worster, C

    S. Bourne Worster, C. Stross, F. M. W. C. Vaughan, N. Lin- den, F. R. Manby, Structure and e fficiency in bacterial pho- tosynthetic light harvesting, The Journal of Physical Chem- istry Letters 10 (23) (2019) 7383–7390. doi:10.1021/acs. jpclett.9b02625

    2019 doi

  43. [50]

    Mohseni, P

    M. Mohseni, P. Rebentrost, S. Lloyd, A. Aspuru-Guzik, Environment-assisted quantum walks in photosynthetic en- ergy transfer, The Journal of Chemical Physics 129 (17) (2008). doi:10.1063/1.3002335

    2008 doi

  44. [51]

    Mehrez, M

    H. Mehrez, M. P. Anantram, Interbase electronic coupling for transport through DNA, Phys. Rev. B 71 (2005) 115405.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.71.115405

    2005 doi

  45. [52]

    Giese, S

    B. Giese, S. Wessely, M. Spormann, U. Lindemann, E. Meg- gers, M. E. Michel-Beyerle, On the Mechanism of Long- Range Electron Transfer through DNA, Angewandte Chemie International Edition 38 (1999) 996–998. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1521-3773(19990401)38: 7<996::AID-A...

    1999 doi

  46. [54]

    Baumgratz, M

    T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, M. Plenio, Quantifying coher- ence, Physical Review Letters 113 (14) (Sep. 2014). doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.113.140401. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113. 140401

    2014 doi

  47. [55]

    F. W. Huang, E. Hodis, M. J. Xu, G. V . Kryukov, L. Chin, L. A. Garraway, Highly recurrent tert promoter mutations in human melanoma, Science 339 (6122) (2013) 957–959.doi: 10.1126/science.1229259. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1229259

    2013 doi

  48. [56]

    S. Horn, A. Figl, P. S. Rachakonda, C. Fischer, A. Sucker, A. Gast, S. Kadel, I. Moll, E. Nagore, K. Hemminki, D. Schadendorf, R. Kumar, Tert promoter mutations in fa- milial and sporadic melanoma, Science 339 (6122) (2013) 959–961. doi:10.1126/science.1230062. URL http://dx.d...

    2013 doi

  49. [57]

    J. Min, J. W. Shay, Tert promoter mutations enhance telomerase activation by long-range chromatin inter- actions, Cancer Discovery 6 (11) (2016) 1212–1214. doi:10.1158/2159-8290.cd-16-1050 . URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290. CD-16-1050

    2016 doi

  50. [58]

    Zhuravel, H

    R. Zhuravel, H. Huang, G. Polycarpou, S. Polydorides, P. Mo- tamarri, L. Katrivas, D. Rotem, J. Sperling, L. A. Zotti, A. B. Kotlyar, J. C. Cuevas, V . Gavini, S. S. Skourtis, D. Po- rath, Backbone charge transport in double-stranded DNA, Na- ture Nanotechnology 15 (2020) 836–...

    2020

  51. [59]

    R. G. Endres, D. L. Cox, R. R. P. Singh, Colloquium: The quest for high-conductance DNA, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76 (2004) 195. 16 Appendix A. Appendix Table A1: Description of selected classes and functions. For a more detailed description of the parameters, attributes and methods we...

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.