Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 66 references

Binding of native DNA to MoS$_{2}$ nanoflakes: the role of defects and edge atoms of MoS$_{2}$ nanostructures in their biofunctionalization

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Native DNA binds MoS2 flakes at edges and sulfur vacancies through phosphate–molybdenum coordination bonds, preserving the double helix.

desk verdict Useful DFT on phosphate–MoS2 coordination at defects, but the 'primarily covalent' claim overreaches the indirect melting data. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20562 v1 pith:5FJK5VTV submitted 2025-04-29 physics.bio-ph

Alexander Glamazda , Evgeniya Usenko , Anastasiia Svidzerska , Vladimir Valeev , Igor Voloshin , Anna Laguta , Sergey Petrushenko , Stepan Stepanian
show 2 more authors
Ludwik Adamowicz Victor Karachevtsev
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-ph
keywords DNA-MoS2nanoassembliesMonanoflakescoordinationbondingphosphatebackbonethermaldenaturationDFTcalculationssulfurvacanciesbiofunctionalization
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 tries to establish how full-length, double-stranded DNA attaches to few-layer MoS2 nanoflakes in water at low salt concentration. On the basis of TEM images, thermal denaturation curves, and DFT calculations, the authors argue that binding is not dominated by the van der Waals stacking seen for single-stranded DNA on the flat basal plane, but by covalent coordination bonds between oxygen atoms of the DNA phosphate backbone and molybdenum atoms exposed only at flake edges or at sulfur-vacancy defects. The evidence is an increase in DNA melting temperature by up to 8.2 °C and a decrease in the hyperchromic coefficient from 0.37 to 0.34, which they read as stabilization of the duplex through point contacts rather than through unstacking or wrapping. If true, the result identifies edge sites and defects, not the pristine basal plane, as the chemically active locations that govern MoS2 biofunctionalization, which matters for designing DNA sensors and drug-delivery carriers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Mo–O coordination bond formed between a phosphate oxygen of the DNA backbone and an exposed Mo atom of MoS2. In the calculations this is modeled by a dMP fragment (deoxyribose 1-methyl-5-monophosphate) interacting with pristine, V2S-vacancy, and MoS-antisite MoS2 fragments, using DFT at the M06-2X level with counterpoise corrections and PCM water. The machinery carries the argument because the computed interaction energies are what separate the water-unstable stacked complexes from the water-stable bonded ones, and the measured melting-temperature and hyperchromicity changes are interpreted through the same bond.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to measure the thermal denaturation curves after chemically blocking the DNA phosphate groups or after annealing the MoS2 flakes to heal sulfur vacancies: if the 8.2 °C melting-temperature shift and the drop in hyperchromic coefficient persist unchanged, the phosphate–Mo coordination mechanism is not what the experiment is seeing. A complementary direct check is EXAFS or XPS detection of Mo–O bonds near 2.1 Å in the nanoassemblies.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that native double-stranded DNA binds to few-layer MoS2 nanoflakes through strong coordination bonds formed between phosphate-group oxygen atoms and molybdenum atoms, and that these Mo atoms are available only at the edges of the flakes or at point defects where sulfur atoms are missing. The authors support the claim with complementary measurements and calculations: TEM shows DNA-covered nanoflakes; DNA melting temperatures rise by up to 8.2 °C and the hyperchromic coefficient drops from 0.37 to 0.34 while the melting curve keeps its S-shape, which they take as evidence that the duplex is stabilized and remains intact; and DFT calculations on a ribose-phosphate model fragment show that stacked complexes are essentially unstable in water (−1.2 kcal/mol) whereas coordination-bonded complexes at edge Mo atoms remain strongly bound (−54.2 kcal/mol in water, with corresponding defect complexes at −44.3 and −19.6 kcal/mol). The proposed mechanism is that conjugation begins at point contacts between DNA phosphate groups and Mo atoms at edges or sulfur vacancies, so the basal plane plays at most a minor role.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the assumption that the measured rise in DNA melting temperature and drop in hyperchromicity are caused specifically by phosphate–molybdenum coordination bonds, rather than by nonspecific electrostatic stabilization, counterion release, or crowding at the flake surface.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If binding is via phosphate–Mo coordination at edges and defects, then the density of edges and sulfur vacancies on a MoS2 flake directly controls how much DNA it can immobilize.
  • Because the duplex structure is preserved upon binding, MoS2 nanoflakes can serve as a platform for capturing native double-stranded DNA without denaturation, which is useful for biosensing.
  • The aqueous stability of the bonded complexes means biofunctionalization is robust under low-salt conditions and does not depend on hydrophobic basal-plane contacts.
  • The S-shaped melting curve and temperature-dependent DLS results indicate the nanoassemblies remain dispersed up to 90 °C, so the conjugate can survive thermal cycling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the authors leave implicit is that defect engineering could tune DNA loading: deliberately introducing controlled sulfur vacancies should increase the number of phosphate-binding sites, a prediction testable by comparing the melting-temperature shift per added MoS2 between defective and annealed flakes.
  • The same coordination mechanism may apply to other phosphorylated biomolecules such as RNA, ATP, or phospholipids, which would broaden MoS2 biofunctionalization beyond DNA; the paper itself studies only DNA.
  • A direct spectroscopic test of the proposed bond would be X-ray photoelectron or extended X-ray absorption fine-structure measurements on dried DNA:MoS2 assemblies, looking for Mo–O bonds near the predicted 2.1 Å distance.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental and DFT study of native calf-thymus DNA binding to liquid-exfoliated MoS2 nanoflakes (FLs). Experimentally, the authors use TEM, temperature-dependent DLS, UV-visible absorption, and thermal denaturation to show that DNA associates with MoS2 FLs without inducing aggregation, and that the DNA melting temperature increases by up to 8.2 °C while the hyperchromic coefficient decreases from 0.37 to 0.34. These changes are interpreted as evidence that DNA binds through phosphate groups to Mo atoms at edges or sulfur-vacancy defects via coordination bonds. DFT calculations on a deoxyribose-monophosphate (dMP) model fragment interacting with pristine and defective MoS2 fragments yield stacked complexes that are unstable in water (interaction energies close to −1 kcal/mol) and bonded coordination complexes that remain stable in water (−19.6 to −54.2 kcal/mol). The authors conclude that binding is primarily covalent, occurring through point contacts between phosphate oxygens and Mo atoms at edges or defects, and that this mechanism is critical for the biofunctionalization of MoS2 nanostructures.

Significance. The paper addresses an important question in the biofunctionalization of 2D materials, namely the chemical nature of native DNA binding to MoS2 nanoflakes. If the covalent-coordination mechanism were firmly established, it would challenge the prevailing view that DNA binds MoS2 mainly through van der Waals and hydrophobic interactions, and it would motivate defect and edge engineering for biosensing applications. The DFT results themselves are a useful contribution: they show a clear qualitative distinction between stacked and bonded binding modes, they include counterpoise, ZPVE, and PCM corrections, and they are not fitted to the experimental melting data. However, the experimental observables (Tm shift, hyperchromicity change, TEM association) indicate that binding occurs and stabilizes the duplex, but they do not identify the specific chemical bonds responsible. The central claim that binding is 'primarily covalent' is therefore plausible but currently underdetermined by the evidence presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, §4, Abstract] The central mechanism claim is not experimentally established. The measured changes (Tm increase of 8.2 °C, hyperchromicity decrease from 0.37 to 0.34, TEM association, and DLS no-aggregation) demonstrate that DNA binds to MoS2 FLs and that the duplex is partially stabilized, but they do not distinguish Mo–O–P coordination bonds from electrostatic stabilization, phosphate–counterion interactions, or adsorption-induced crowding. In §3.3 the Tm rise is first attributed to 'the interaction of positively charged atoms of MoS2 FL with the negatively charged phosphate group of DNA,' and the DFT section then upgrades this to covalent coordination. No experiment directly detects Mo–O bonds. The conclusion 'primarily covalent' is therefore a load-bearing interpretive step that lacks direct experimental support.
  2. [§2.6, Table 1, §2.1] The DFT model uses idealized, unpassivated MoS2 fragments with bare edge Mo atoms and no explicit water, whereas the experimental MoS2 FLs are prepared by ultrasonication in ammonia-water at pH 9.8 and subsequently suspended in aqueous buffer. Under these conditions, edge and defect sites are likely terminated by OH, H2O, or NH3 species. The PCM-corrected binding energies in Table 1 (e.g., −54.2 kcal/mol for MoS2-dMP B1) therefore show that coordination is possible at bare idealized sites, but they do not establish that such sites are present or accessible in the actual ammoniated aqueous suspension. This gap weakens the extrapolation from the DFT results to the experimental system.
  3. [§3.1, §3.3, §4] The paper claims a 'critical role of defects and edge atoms' in biofunctionalization, but no experimental evidence correlates the extent of DNA binding with edge area or defect concentration. No defect density, edge-to-basal ratio, or passivation state was measured for the MoS2 FLs used. The conclusion rests entirely on the DFT enumeration of possible binding sites. Without a correlation to edge or defect content, alternative mechanisms such as nonspecific physisorption or electrostatic interactions remain viable explanations for the observed Tm and hyperchromicity changes.
  4. [§2.6] The dMP model, in which nucleobases are replaced by methyl groups, is a reasonable first approximation for the sugar-phosphate backbone of double-stranded DNA, as the authors note. However, the DFT interaction energies are computed for a single isolated dMP fragment, not for a long polymer. The extrapolation to native calf-thymus DNA ignores polyvalent contacts from multiple phosphate groups, backbone stiffness, phosphate–phosphate repulsion, and the entropic cost of immobilizing the polymer. The claim that the DFT energies explain the experimentally observed Tm increase of a long duplex is therefore only qualitative, and the manuscript should state this limitation explicitly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.5] The definition of the hyperchromic coefficient h(T) uses 'ATo' without a clear explanation; the notation 'ATo' should be defined explicitly as the initial absorbance at the reference temperature.
  2. [§2.6, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) appears garbled in the manuscript text; the expression '54888 exp' should be typeset correctly and the units of the coefficient should be specified.
  3. [§3.3] In the description of the melting curves, 'point C' should be 'point c' to match the lowercase labels in Figure 3.
  4. [§3.4] The zeta-potential values of −26±1 mV for MoS2 FLs and −28±1 mV for the nanoassembly are given, but the experimental uncertainty and the number of replicate measurements are not stated.
  5. [§2.4] The statement 'The sample degradation was not observed during the experiment' is not accompanied by any data or criteria; a brief description of the control used to rule out degradation would be helpful.
  6. [§3.3] The phrase 'a huge impact' in the Introduction is informal; a more quantitative or neutral term would be preferable in a journal-style manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the DFT interaction energies are ab initio and not fitted to the experimental melting data, so the central mechanism claim is not defined in terms of its own outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that native DNA binds to MoS2 nanoflakes primarily through coordination bonds between phosphate oxygens and Mo atoms at edges or sulfur vacancies. The experimental inputs are TEM association, a Tm increase of up to 8.2 C, and a decrease in hyperchromicity from 0.37 to 0.34; these observables establish binding and duplex stabilization but do not by themselves identify the bonding type. The covalent-coordination mechanism is supplied by independent DFT calculations on a deoxyribose-monophosphate model with M06-2X, counterpoise correction, and PCM water solvation. These calculations are parameter-free, are not fitted to the measured Tm or h values, and their stated assumptions (idealized pristine-edge and defect fragments) do not include the experimental result being explained. The DFT outputs are therefore genuinely independent evidence rather than a restatement of the inputs. The paper cites its authors' prior DFT work (refs. 38 and 39) for the trend that covalently bonded nucleobase-MoS2 complexes are much stronger than stacked ones, but this citation is corroborative, not load-bearing: the present manuscript performs its own full DFT geometry optimizations and interaction-energy calculations for the dMP-MoS2 complexes, so the central conclusion does not reduce to a self-citation. No equation in the paper defines a predicted quantity in terms of the fitted experimental parameters, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The interpretive gap between the thermal-denaturation data and the specific covalent-bond mechanism is a scientific-inference concern about experimental support, not a circularity of derivation. Accordingly, no circular step is identified and the score is 0.

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

No free parameters were fitted to data; the paper uses standard DFT methods and idealizes both the DNA backbone and the MoS2 reactive sites. The four listed assumptions are the main unverified premises on which the proposed mechanism rests.

assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The dMP model molecule, with nucleobases replaced by methyl groups, is an adequate representation of the sugar-phosphate backbone of double-stranded DNA for studying MoS2 binding.
    Invoked in Section 2.6: bases in dsDNA are less accessible, so only the backbone is modeled. If the bases contribute steric or electronic effects, the computed binding preferences may not transfer to native DNA.
  • domain assumption The MoS2 cluster with exposed edge Mo atoms and selected point defects (MoS and V2S) represents the reactive sites present on real exfoliated nanoflakes at pH 7.
    The paper assumes edge and defect sites are present and accessible, but the experimental MoS2 sample is not characterized for defect type or density.
  • domain assumption M06-2X DFT with LanL2DZ/LanL2DZdp ECP and PCM provides chemically reliable interaction energies for Mo-O coordination in these complexes.
    The functional and basis are standard but are not benchmarked against higher-level theory or experimental binding energies for this specific phosphate-MoS2 system.
  • domain assumption The observed increase in DNA melting temperature is caused by direct binding of phosphate groups to Mo atoms rather than by salt, pH, or crowding effects from the nanoflakes.
    Section 3.3 interprets the Tm increase as attachment to positively charged Mo atoms, but alternative physical mechanisms are not tested experimentally.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Binding of native DNA to MoS$_{2}$ nanoflakes: the role of defects and edge atoms of MoS$_{2}$ nanostructures in their biofunctionalization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5FJK5VTV

@misc{pith2026250420562,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Binding of native DNA to MoS$_2$ nanoflakes: the role of defects and edge atoms of MoS$_2$ nanostructures in their biofunctionalization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5FJK5VTV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20562}
}
abstract

In this work, the binding of native DNA to MoS$_{2}$ nanoflakes (FLs) was studied by using UV-visible absorption spectroscopy, thermal denaturation method, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), temperature-dependent dynamic light scattering (DLS), and the DFT computational-chemistry method. Analysis of the experimental data: TEM images and thermal denaturation measurements showed the binding of the biopolymer with MoS$_{2}$ FLs. An increase in the melting temperature of DNA and a decrease in the hyperchromic coefficient at binding with MoS$_{2}$ FLs indicates the formation of the DNA:MoS$_{2}$ FL nanoassemblies due primarily to the covalent interaction of the oxygen atoms of the phosphate groups of DNA with the MoS$_{2}$ FLs. Possible complexes of a nucleotide fragment (ribose-phosphate group) with MoS$_{2}$ nanolayer are considered and calculated employing the DFT method. Different structures of these complexes are optimized and the interaction energies between components are determined. Special attention in calculations is focused on the binding of this nucleotide fragment with Mo atoms located at the edge of the MoS$_{2}$ nanolayer and with point structural defects of the MoS$_{2}$ surface containing the S vacancy. Based on this calculation and experimental observation, a mechanism of binding of native DNA to MoS$_{2}$ FLs has been proposed, in which their conjugation begins with point contacts of DNA phosphate groups with Mo atoms (at the edge or/and in defects) through the formation of a strong coordination bond. The results indicate the critical role of defects and edge atoms of MoS$_{2}$ FLs in their biofunctionalization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20562 by the authors.

Figure 5
Figure 5. The size distributions by intensity, by volume, and by number for the MoS2 FL colloidal suspension at pH 9.98 at T = 25 °C The polydispersity index (PdI) equal to about 0.21±0.02 suggests that the MoS2 FLs’ sample has low polydispersity. The zeta potential of the MoS2 FL suspension is found to be -26±1 mV. The PdI value of the DNA:MoS2 FL suspension is slightly larger than for the MoS2 FL suspension and equal to 0.2… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T. Wang, R. Zhu, J. Zhuo, Z. Zhu, Y. Shao, M. Li, Anal. Chem. 86, 12064 (2014) . https://doi.org/10.1021/ac5027786

    work page doi:10.1021/ac5027786 2014

  2. [2]

    Radisavljevic, A

    B. Radisavljevic, A. Radenovic, J. Brivio, I. V. Giacometti, A. Kis, Nat. Nanotechnol. 6, 147 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2010.279

    doi:10.1038/nnano.2010.279 2011

  3. [3]

    Lopez-Sanchez, D

    O. Lopez-Sanchez, D. Lembke, M. Kayci, A. Radenovic, A. Kis, Nat. Nanotechnol. 8, 497 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2013.100

    doi:10.1038/nnano.2013.100 2013

  4. [4]

    Bazaka, I

    K. Bazaka, I. Levchenko, J. W. Lim, O. Baranov, C. Corbella, S. Xu, M. Keidar, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 52, 183001 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/ab03b3

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6463/ab03b3 2019

  5. [5]

    Cetinel, W.Z

    S. Cetinel, W.Z. Shen, M. Aminpour, P. Bhomkar, F. Wang, E. R. Borujeny, K. Sharma, N. Nayebi, C. Montemagno, Sci. Rep. 8, 3374 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21692-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-018-21692-4 2018

  6. [6]

    Y. Chen, C. L. Tan, H. Zhang, L. Z. Wang, Chem. Soc. Rev. 44, 2681 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1039/C4CS00300D

    work page doi:10.1039/c4cs00300d 2015

  7. [7]

    C. L. Tan, X. H. Cao, X. J. Wu, Q. Y. He, J. Yang, X. Zhang, J. Z. Chen, W. Zhao, S. K. Han, G. H. Nam, M. Sindoro, H. Zhang, Chem. Rev. 117, 6225 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00558

    doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00558 2017

  8. [8]

    S. Su, W. Cao, W. Liu, Z. Lu, D. Zhu, J. Chao, L. Weng, L. Wang, C. Fan, L. Wang, Biosensors and bioelectronics 94, 552 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2017.03.040

    work page doi:10.1016/j.bios.2017.03.040 2017

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Huang, Y

    Z. Huang, Y. Qi, D. Yu, J. Zhan, RSC Adv. 6, 31031 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RA03226E

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    S. Xu, D. Li, P. Wu, Adv. Funct. Mater. 25, 1127 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201403863

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    Splendiani, L

    A. Splendiani, L. Sun, Y. Zhang, T. Li, J. Kim, C.Y. Chim, G. Galli, F. Wang, Nano Lett. 10, 1271 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1021/nl903868w

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    G. Eda, H. Yamaguchi, D. Voiry, T. Fujita, M. Chen, M. Chhowalla, Nano Lett. 11, 5111 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1021/nl201874w

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    Gourmelon, O

    E. Gourmelon, O. Lignier, H. Hadouda, G. Couturier, J. Bernede, J. Tedd, J. Pouzet, J . Salardenne, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 46, 115 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-0248(96)00096-7

    1997 doi

  6. [14]

    T. F. Jaramillo, K. P. Jørgensen, J. Bonde, J. H. Nielsen, S. Horch, I. Chorkendorff, Science 317, 100 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1141483

    2007 doi

  7. [15]

    G. Liu, L. Ding, Y. Meng, A. Ali, G.Zuo, X. Meng, K. Chang, O. Lun Li, J. Ye, Carbon Energy 6, e521 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1002/cey2.521 23

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Uddin, R

    J. Uddin, R. Dubey, V. S. Balasubramaniam, J. Kabel, V. Khare, Z. Salimi, S. Sharma, D. Zhang, Y. K. Yap, Micromachines 15, 349 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/mi15030349

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Sumer and J

    B. Sumer and J. Gao, Nanomedicine 3,137 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813669- 0.00002-6

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    Gupta, V

    D. Gupta, V. Chauhan, S. Upadhyay, N. Koratkar, F. Singh, S. Kumar, A. Mahajan, R. Chandra, R. Kumar, Mater. Chem. Phys. 276, 125422 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2021.125422

    2022

  11. [19]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Kuwahara, K. Mori, H. Yamashita, Chem. Asian. J. 14, 278 (2019). 10.1002/asia.201801594

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    J. Feng, K. Liu, R. D. Bulushev, S. Khlybov, D. Dumcenco, A. Kis, A. Radenovic, Nat. Nanotechnol. 10, 1070 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2015.219

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    Sen and M

    P. Sen and M. Gupta, RSC Adv. 11, 6114 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RA10222A

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    S. Su, H. Sun, W. Cao, J. Chao, H. Peng, X. Zuo, L. Yuwen, C. Fan, L. Wang, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 8, 6826 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.5b12833

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    Mphuthi, L

    N. Mphuthi, L. Sikhwivhilu, S. S. Ray, Sensors. Biosensors. 12, 386 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/bios12060386

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    T. N. P. Nguyen, S. H. Nguyen, M. T. Tran, PloS One 19, e0299272 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299272

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    L. Yan, H. Shi, X. Sui, Z. Deng, L. Gao, RSC. Adv. 7, 23573 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RA02649H

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    García-Fernández, L

    D. García-Fernández, L. Gutiérrez- Gálvez, M. Vázquez Sulleiro, M. Garrido, D. López-Diego, M. Luna, E. M. Pérez, T. García -Mendiola, E. Lorenzo, Talanta 270, 125497 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2023.125497

    2024

  19. [27]

    Drozdowska, J

    K. Drozdowska, J. Smulko, J. Czubek, S. Rumyantsev, A. Kwiatkowski, Sci. Rep. 14, 22172 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-73525-2

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    L. Wang, L. Dong, G. Liu, X. Shen, J. Wang, C. Zhu, M. Ding, Y. Wen, Mikrochim. Acta 186, 286 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00604-019-3368-y

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    L. Zhao, D. Kong, Z. Wu, G. Liu, Y. Gao, X. Yan, F. Liu, X. Liu, C. Wang, J. Cui, G. Lu, Microchem. J. 155, 104675 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2020.104675

    2020

  22. [30]

    Talha-Dean, K

    T. Talha-Dean, K. Chen, G. Mastroianni, F. Gesuele, J. Mol, M. Palma, Bioconjugate Chem. 34, 78 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.2c00285 24

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    Amoroso, A

    G. Amoroso, A. Sapelkin, Q. Ye, V. Araullo-Peters, A. Cecconello, G. Fernandez, M. Palma, Faraday Discuss. 227, 233 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1039/C9FD00118B

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    C. Lu, Y. Liu, Y. Ying, J. Liu, Langmuir 33, 630 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.6b04502

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    Sharma, A

    M. Sharma, A. Kumar, P. K. Ahluwalia, RSC Adv . 6, 60223 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RA10008B

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    Vovusha and B

    H. Vovusha and B. Sanyal, RSC Adv. 5, 67427 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RA14664J

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    Sadeghi, M

    M. Sadeghi, M. Jahanshahi, M. Ghorbanzadeh, G. Najafpour, Appl. Surf. Sci. 434, 176 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.10.162

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    Tabatabaei, M

    S.-M. Tabatabaei, M. Pourfath, M. Fathipour, J. Appl. Phys. 124, 134501 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5034004

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    Liang, W

    L. Liang, W. Hu, Z. Xue, J.-W. Shen, FlatChem 2, 8 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flatc.2017.02.001

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Stepanian, V

    S. Stepanian, V. Karachevtsev, L. Adamowicz, Chem. Phys. Lett. 844, 141270 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2024.141270

    2024

  31. [39]

    Piddubnyi, S

    T. Piddubnyi, S. Stepanian, V. Karachevtsev, L. Adamowicz, Fiz. Nizk. Temp. 50, 210 (2024) [Low Temp. Phys. 50, 196 (2024)]. https://doi.org/10.1063/10.0024968

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    Asefifeyzabadi, P

    N. Asefifeyzabadi, P. K. Das, A. H. Onorimuo, G. Durocher, M. H. Shamsi, RSC Adv. 11, 28332 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1039/D1RA04917H

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    Ahmadi-Sangachin, F

    E. Ahmadi-Sangachin, F. Bazzi, G. Xu, M. Hosseini, Microchem. J. 191, 108779 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2023.108779

    2023

  34. [42]

    F. Liu, Y. Zhang, H. Wang, L. Li, W. Zhao, J.-W. Shen, L. Liang, Chem. Phys. 529, 110546 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemphys.2019.110546

    2020

  35. [43]

    Saikia, Nanotechnology 33, 105602 (2022)

    N. Saikia, Nanotechnology 33, 105602 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6528/ac3d61

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    Saenger, Principles of nucleic acid structure

    W. Saenger, Principles of nucleic acid structure. Springer, New York, 1998

    1998

  37. [45]

    Barreda -García, R

    S. Barreda -García, R. Miranda-Castro, N. de -Los-Santos-Álvarez, A. J. Miranda-Ordieres, M. J. Lobo-Castañón, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 410, 679 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-017-0620-3

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    Adilbekova, Y

    B. Adilbekova, Y. Lin, E. Yengel, H. Faber, G. Harrison, Y. Firdaus, A. El -Labban, D. H. Anjum, V. Tung, T. D. Anthopoulos, J. Mater. Chem. C 8, 5259 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1039/D0TC00659A

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    H. Ma, Z. Shen, S. Ben, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 537, 28 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2018.11.008 25

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    Anto Jeffery, C

    A. Anto Jeffery, C. Nethravathi, M. Rajamathi, J. Phys. Chem. C 118, 1386 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1021/jp410918c

    2014 doi

  41. [49]

    V. A. Sorokin, V. A. Valeev, E. L. Usenko, V. V. Andrushchenko, Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 50, 854 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2011.11.011

    2012 doi

  42. [50]

    Usenko, A

    E. Usenko, A. Svidzerska, A. Glamazda, V. Valeev, A. Laguta, V. Karachevtsev, Colloid. Polym. Sci. 302, 23 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00396-023-05175-1

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    V. A. Bloomfield, D. M. Crothers, I. Tinoco, Nucleic Acids: Structure, Properties, and Functions. University Science Books, Sausalito, CA, 2000

    2000

  44. [52]

    Zhao and D

    Y. Zhao and D. G. Truhlar, Theor. Chem. Acc. 120, 215 (2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00214- 007-0401-8

    2008 doi

  45. [53]

    S. F. Boys and F. Bernardi, Mol. Phys. 19, 553 (1970). https://doi.org/10.1080/00268977000101561

    1970 doi

  46. [54]

    P. J. Hay, W. R. Wadt, J. Chem. Phys. 82, 270 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.448799

    1985 doi

  47. [55]

    P. J. Hay, W. R. Wadt, J. Chem. Phys. 82, 284 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.448800

    1985 doi

  48. [56]

    P. J. Hay, W. R. Wadt, J. Chem. Phys. 82, 299 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.448975

    1985 doi

  49. [57]

    C. E. Check, T. O. Faust, J. M. Bailey, B. J. Wright, T. M. Gilbert, L. S. Sunderlin, J. Phys. Chem. A 105, 8111 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1021/jp011945l

    2001 doi

  50. [58]

    J. Hong, Z. Hu, M. Probert, K. Li, D. Lv, X. Yang, L. Gu, N. Mao, Q. Feng, L. Xie, J. Zhang, D. Wu, Z. Zhang, C. Jin, W. Ji, X. Zhang, J. Yuan, Z. Zhang, Nat. Commun. 6, 6293(2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7293

    2015 doi

  51. [59]

    W. Zhou, X. Zou, S. Najmaei, Z. Liu, Y. Shi, J. Kong, J. Lou, P. M. Ajayan, B. I. Yakobson, J.-C. Idrobo, Nano Lett. 13, 2615 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1021/nl4007479

    2013 doi

  52. [60]

    Scalmani and M

    G. Scalmani and M. J. Frisch, J. Chem. Phys. 132, 114110 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3359469

    2010 doi

  53. [61]

    M. J. Frisch, G. W. Trucks, H. B. Schlegel, G. E. Scuseria, M. A. Robb, J. R. Cheeseman, G. Scalmani, V. Barone, G. A. Petersson, H. Nakatsuji, X. Li, M. Caricato, A. V. Marenich, J. Bloino, B. G. Janesko, R. Gomperts, B. Mennucci, H. P. Hratchian, J. V. Ortiz, A. F. Izmaylov,...

    2016

  54. [62]

    J. Chen, Y. Xia, Y., J. Yang, B. Chen, Applied Physics A 124, 1 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00339-018-1843-7

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    B. Li, L. Jiang, X. Li, P. Ran, P. Zuo, A. Wang, L. Qu, Y. Zhao, Z. Cheng, Y. Lu, Sci. Rep. 7, 11182 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10632-3

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    Backes, R.J

    C. Backes, R.J. Smith, N. McEvoy, N.C. Berner, D. McCloskey, H. C. Nerl, A. O’Neill, P.J. King, T. Higgins, D. Hanlon, N. Scheuschner, J. Maultzsch, L. Houben, G. S. Duesberg, J.F. Donegan, V. Nicolosi, J. N. Coleman, Nat. Commun. 5, 4576 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5576

    2014 doi

  57. [65]

    V. A. Sorokin, V. A. Valeev, G. O. Gladchenko, M. V. Degtyar, V. A. Karachevtsev, Yu. P. Blagoi, Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 31, 223 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0141-8130(02)00085-5

    2003 doi

  58. [66]

    Lotya, A

    M. Lotya, A. Rakovich, J. F. Donegan, J. N. Coleman, Nanotechnology 24, 265703(2013). https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-4484/24/26/265703

    2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.