Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 82 references

Chirality-bolstered quantum Zeno effect enhances radical pair-based magnetoreception

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 CISS-based enhancement of the radical-pair compass works only when chirality generates spin polarization.

desk verdict A well-built computational comparison of polarization vs. coherence CISS in cryptochrome, with a normalization error in the triplet-precursor extension that needs fixing before the FADH/O2 conclusions can stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01519 v1 pith:EA7PXN3I submitted 2025-05-02 quant-ph physics.bio-ph

Luke D. Smith , Sukesh Tallapudi , Matt C. J. Denton , Daniel R. Kattnig This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.bio-ph
keywords radicalpairmechanismmagnetoreceptionchirality-inducedspinselectivityCISSquantumZenoeffectcryptochromepolarizationcoherence
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

The paper tests whether the chirality-induced spin selectivity (CISS) effect can sharpen the biochemical 'compass' proposed to guide bird navigation, and through which physical channel. It models two cryptochrome radical pairs—the singlet-born FAD•−/W•+C pair and the triplet-born FADH•/O2•− pair—under two CISS variants: one that injects spin polarization into the initial state and recombination operator, and one, derived microscopically, that generates only spin coherence. The central finding is that the polarization-generating variant substantially increases the directional anisotropy of the recombination yield, while the coherence-generating variant does not and can even reduce the gain. Because the gains appear exactly in the regime of strongly asymmetric recombination, the paper attributes them, to a large extent, to a chirality-bolstered quantum Zeno effect rather than to chirality per se.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the two CISS-modified spin projectors: the polarization-generating $\hat P_\chi^{(P)} = |\psi_\chi^{(P)}\rangle\langle\psi_\chi^{(P)}|$ with $|\psi_\chi^{(P)}\rangle = \cos(\chi/2)|S\rangle + \sin(\chi/2)|T_0\rangle$, and the coherence-generating $\hat P_\theta^{(C)}$ with $|\psi_\theta^{(C)}\rangle = \cos\theta|S\rangle + i\sin\theta|T_0\rangle$. These enter both the initial state and the recombination operator of a Nakajima–Zwanzig master equation. The paper's unifying mechanism is the quantum channel of Eq. (19), a phase rotation on the transferred electron followed by exchange evolution $e^{ij\hat{S}_1\cdot\hat{S}_2}$: different exchange limits reproduce the CISP and CISC singlet precursors, and the same channel, applied with $j=\pi/8$, defines the paper's suggested triplet-precursor states for FADH•/O2•−. The same machinery connects chirality to the quantum Zeno effect, because the polarization-bearing states add triplet character and the asymmetric recombination rates pin the spin dynamics, producing the $1/k_b$ level-splitting signature.

What would settle it

Measure the directional recombination-yield anisotropy of an oriented radical pair or a donor–bridge–acceptor model compound while sweeping the recombination rate $k_b$ through the asymmetric regime and independently tuning whether the chiral bridge generates spin polarization or only coherence. The paper predicts a CISP gain that grows with asymmetry and a CISC gain that is at least an order of magnitude smaller or negative; observing coherence-generated CISS produce comparable or larger anisotropy, or polarization-generated CISS produce gains only at symmetric rates, would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that CISS affects magnetoreception through spin polarization, not through coherence: for both cryptochrome radical pairs, the CISP model (Luo–Hore) raises the recombination-yield anisotropy $\Delta\Phi_b$, in some regimes by an order of magnitude, while the CISC model (Fay) yields no significant increase and can attenuate the quantum-Zeno enhancement. The polarization gain comes with the characteristic inverted-V profile over recombination rates, peaking where $k_b \gg k_f$, the regime previously identified with the quantum Zeno effect; an eigenvalue analysis of a toy model shows that the yield anisotropy tracks level splittings that scale as $1/k_b$, the Zeno signature. The paper also supplies a unified quantum-channel description, Eq. (19), from which both CISP and CISC initial states and recombination projectors can be recovered as limiting cases, and uses it to extend both models to triplet-precursor radical pairs. The authors conclude that CISS is not a universal enhancer of sensitivity or coherence and must be evaluated case by case, with polarization as the essential ingredient.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the assumed chiral modifications of the initial spin state for the radical pair that starts in the triplet spin configuration—an explicitly chosen quantum channel for the polarization model and an unshown analogous derivation for the coherence model—correctly describe how chirality alters a triplet-born radical pair.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In cryptochrome-like radical pairs, the compass benefit of CISS will appear only when the chiral medium generates spin polarization; a coherence-only CISS signal will not provide it and may reduce the baseline Zeno sensitivity.
  • The CISP-enhanced anisotropy is concentrated in strongly asymmetric recombination ($k_b \gg k_f$), so experiments should look for the Zeno-regime rate dependence rather than symmetric-rate gains.
  • Spin relaxation at effective rates around $1\, \mu\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ attenuates but does not eliminate the CISP enhancement, so the effect remains a plausible in vivo resource.
  • For the singlet-born FAD•−/W•+C pair, the largest CISP gains at symmetric rates demand very long radical-pair lifetimes and are likely relaxation-limited; the practical enhancement lies in the asymmetric regime.
  • The unified interpolation channel gives a single mathematical family for CISS-influenced initial states and recombination, covering both the CISP and CISC models and both singlet and triplet precursors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the prediction is right, then the functional quantity to measure in cryptochrome is initial spin polarization $\langle \hat{S}_{1z}-\hat{S}_{2z}\rangle$, not coherence: a transient EPR or reaction-yield experiment on an oriented sample that sees polarization where the paper's CISP model predicts it would support the mechanism, while a coherence-only signature would not.
  • The authors' finding that mean coherence can stay large while anisotropy shrinks implies that earlier coherence-based reports of CISS 'enhancement' may have tracked a resource that is not the compass's functional output; directional variability of coherence is the better proxy.
  • Because the interpolation channel's $j$ parameter (exchange evolution) selects between CISP-like and CISC-like behavior, donor–bridge–acceptor molecules with tunable bridge exchange should be able to interpolate between a Zeno-bolstered and a Zeno-neutral compass, a testable design rule for molecular spintronics.
  • Read evolutionarily, the paper implies that natural selection would act on chirality only insofar as it yields spin polarization; if polarization is absent, CISS would be a spandrel or a constraint, which could explain why some chiral biological electron-transfer systems show strong spin selectivity and others do not.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates whether chirality-induced spin selectivity (CISS) can enhance the directional magnetic sensitivity of radical-pair-based magnetoreception in cryptochrome. The authors compare two CISS models: a phenomenological spin-polarization model (CISP) and a microscopically motivated spin-coherence model (CISC). They simulate recombination yields and anisotropies for the singlet-born FAD•−/W•+ pair and the triplet-born FADH•/O2•− pair, scanning over reaction rates, CISS angles, hyperfine coupling complexity, and spin relaxation. The central claims are that CISP-generated spin polarization significantly enhances magnetic sensitivity, primarily by reinforcing the quantum Zeno effect, whereas CISC-generated coherence does not and can even be detrimental. A quantum-channel interpolation between the CISP and CISC models is proposed, and a toy-model eigenvalue analysis is used to support the quantum Zeno attribution.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper would resolve an open question about whether CISS acts as a universal enhancer in cryptochrome magnetoreception: polarization, not coherence, is the functional resource. This is a substantive contribution to quantum biology and spin chemistry, and the study is carried out with considerable care. The numerical work is systematic (200×200 rate and angle scans, several hyperfine models, relaxation included), the methods follow established master-equation and Nakajima–Zwanzig formalisms, and the quantum-Zeno attribution is checked against independent eigenvalue-scaling criteria rather than inferred from the enhancement alone. The main risk is that the triplet-precursor CISS states, on which the FADH•/O2•− conclusions rest, are introduced as suggestions rather than derivations and are printed with an internal normalization/inconsistency problem.

major comments (3)
  1. [I.C, Eqs. (20)–(21)] Eq. (20) as printed is not a valid density operator. The equality to 1/(3Z) − (1/3)ρ_S^P forces the bracket to be 3/4 + S1zS2z + ... not 1/4 + ..., so the printed form has trace 1/3 (for Z=1) and at χ=π/2 acquires a negative eigenvalue. Eq. (21) likewise has trace 1/3 as written and for θ=0 reduces to 1/4 + S1·S2, which is not a physical state. Because the FADH•/O2•− results and the central CISP-vs-CISC contrast for triplet-born pairs are computed from these states, the formulas must be corrected and their normalization fixed before the quantitative claims about triplet-born pairs can be taken as supported.
  2. [I.C, Eqs. (20)–(21)] The triplet-precursor CISS states are not derived. For CISP, the text says the form is 'suggested' and sets j=π/8 without further justification; for CISC, Eq. (21) is said to follow from an 'analogous derivation to the one given by Fay' but that derivation is not shown. Since the abstract and discussion draw a general conclusion from both singlet- and triplet-born pairs, the authors must either provide a rigorous derivation of these triplet states from an underlying electron-transfer model or explicitly reframe them as modeling assumptions and test whether the qualitative CISP-enhances/CISC-does-not conclusion is robust to other plausible triplet initial-state choices.
  3. [III, Discussion (Zeno attribution)] The statement that the enhancements are 'arguably predominantly' due to the quantum Zeno effect is supported only for a reduced toy model in Fig. 5, not for the full hyperfine models of Figs. 2–4. The eigenvalue-scaling analysis is a useful diagnostic, but the text should state more carefully that this attribution is demonstrated for the toy model and inferred for the full systems by the shared rate-asymmetry signatures, rather than implying a direct causal proof for all computed cases.
minor comments (5)
  1. [I.A] The word 'precence' appears in the sentence introducing the triplet precursor for FADH•/O2•−; it should be 'presence'.
  2. [Introduction] 'asymetrical' is misspelled; should be 'asymmetrical'.
  3. [Eqs. (10)–(12)] The symbol Φb is used both for the orientation-resolved yield in Eq. (10) and for the mean yield in Eq. (12); this is confusing and should be disambiguated (e.g., by using ⟨Φ⟩ for the mean).
  4. [Fig. 2 caption] The captions state that heatmaps are normalized by the maximum value of ΔΦb; it would help readers if the normalization constants are also stated in the text or in the figure panels.
  5. [II, Results (coherence)] The coherence results are relegated to the SI, but the main text says they 'qualitatively carry over'; a brief definition of the coherence measures used (or an explicit pointer to the SI equation numbers) in the main text would improve accessibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CISP-vs-CISC sensitivity contrast is a computed output of explicitly specified model inputs, not a defined identity.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are generated by numerical integration of the master equation (1) with explicit CISS-modified initial states and recombination projectors: CISP from Luo-Hore (Eqs. 13-15) and CISC from Fay (Eqs. 16-18). The scan parameters (chi, k_b, k_f, gamma, hyperfine sets) are varied over ranges, not fitted to any target sensitivity, and the anisotropy and relative anisotropy are defined independently (Eqs. 10-12). The CISP/CISC contrast is therefore a simulation result, not an input. The only self-citation is the use of the authors' prior ref. [55] to label the eigenstate-coupling signature as the quantum Zeno effect; however, Fig. 5 displays the eigenvalue scaling itself, so the attribution is supported by the present calculation rather than being reduced to the citation. The triplet-precursor states in Eqs. (20)-(21) are explicitly proposed as modeling assumptions ('we suggest', 'an analogous derivation ... yields'), and the FADH/O2 conclusions do rest on those assumptions, but an unproven assumption is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction. No equation in the paper defines the predicted sensitivity in terms of the CISS parameters by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model combines the radical-pair mechanism, imported CISS models (Luo-Hore CISP, Fay CISC), and the same group's previous quantum Zeno analysis. The main ad hoc addition is the triplet-precursor generalization in Sec. I.C, which is not microscopically derived for CISP and is asserted without derivation for CISC. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • chi (CISS mixing angle, CISP and CISC; chi=2theta for CISC) = varied 0 to pi/2; no experimental value
    Controls the degree of CISS in state preparation and recombination; all enhancement findings are conditional on large chi, which is not measured.
  • j (exchange phase in the interpolation channel, Eq. (19)) = pi/8 for CISP triplet precursor; pi/2 n for CISC
    Chosen by hand to obtain the assumed triplet CISP state in Eq. (20); not tied to a microscopic exchange value.
  • kf and kb (forward and recombination rate constants) = scanned 10^-3 to 10^6 inverse microseconds; kf=1 in Figs. 3-4
    Scanned rather than fitted; the main enhancement exists only for strongly asymmetric rates, making the conclusion regime-dependent.
  • gamma (effective RFR relaxation rate) = 1 inverse microsecond, tau_c=1 ns
    Single relaxation scenario tested; robustness not mapped over a range of gamma.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Radical pair mechanism with singlet/triplet recombination and the Nakajima-Zwanzig master equation (Eqs. (1), (6)) describes cryptochrome spin dynamics.
    Foundation of the model; imported from prior literature, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption CISS can be represented by the one-parameter projectors P_chi(P) and P_theta(C) (Eqs. (13), (16)) applied to state preparation and recombination.
    CISP is phenomenological (Luo-Hore) and CISC is from a one-step transfer derivation (Fay); both are assumed applicable to cryptochrome.
  • ad hoc to paper The triplet-precursor CISS states are obtained by applying the quantum channel Eq. (19) to an unpolarized triplet with j=pi/8 (CISP) or by an analogous derivation (CISC).
    The CISP triplet state is explicitly a suggestion ('can reasonably be assumed'); the CISC triplet state is stated without derivation. All superoxide results depend on this.
  • domain assumption Spin relaxation is dominated by uncorrelated random-field fluctuations with gamma=1 inverse microsecond and tau_c=1 ns.
    Single model of relaxation; robustness only shown for this parameter choice.
  • domain assumption Hyperfine and dipolar tensors taken from refs. [16,33] are appropriate for ClCRY4a radical pairs.
    Parameters are inherited from prior structural/computational studies without new validation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chirality-bolstered quantum Zeno effect enhances radical pair-based magnetoreception." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EA7PXN3I

@misc{pith2026250501519,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chirality-bolstered quantum Zeno effect enhances radical pair-based magnetoreception},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EA7PXN3I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01519}
}
read the original abstract

Radical pairs in the flavoprotein cryptochrome are central to various magnetically sensitive biological processes, including the proposed mechanism of avian magnetoreception. Cryptochrome's molecular chirality has been hypothesized to enhance magnetic field effects via the chirality-induced spin selectivity (CISS) effect, yet the mechanism underlying this enhancement remains unresolved. In this work, we systematically investigate the impact of CISS on the directional magnetic sensitivity of prototypical radical pair reactions, analyzing two distinct models--one generating spin polarization and, for the first time, one generating coherence. We find that CISS-induced spin polarization significantly enhances magnetic sensitivity by introducing triplet character into the initial state and reinforcing the quantum Zeno effect, paralleling enhancements observed in triplet-born radical pairs subject to strongly asymmetric recombination. In contrast, CISS-generated spin coherence does not provide a significant improvement in sensitivity. These findings indicate that CISS is not itself a universal enhancer of sensitivity or coherence in radical-pair reactions, and its influence must be evaluated case by case, particularly in relation to the quantum Zeno effect. Additionally, we provide a unified interpolation scheme for modeling CISS-influenced initial states and recombination dynamics, encompassing the principal models currently discussed in the literature for singlet and triplet precursors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01519 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Avian ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Heatmaps of anisotropy of the recombination yield ∆Φ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Heatmaps of anisotropy ∆Φ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Line plots of anisotropy ∆Φ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of eigenvalues of the effective system Hamiltonian, to recombination yields and anisotropy for a toy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Wiltschko and W

    R. Wiltschko and W. Wiltschko, Magnetoreception in birds, J. R. Soc. Interface 16, 20190295 (2019)

    2019

  2. [2]

    Mouritsen, Long-distance navigation and magnetore- ception in migratory animals, Nature 558, 50 (2018)

    H. Mouritsen, Long-distance navigation and magnetore- ception in migratory animals, Nature 558, 50 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    Johnsen and K

    S. Johnsen and K. J. Lohmann, Magnetoreception in an- imals, Phys. Today 61, 29 (2008)

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    P. J. Hore and H. Mouritsen, The radical-pair mecha- nism of magnetoreception, Annu. Rev. Biophys. 45, 299 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    P. H. Alvarez, L. Gerhards, I. A. Solov’yov, and M. C. de Oliveira, Quantum phenomena in bio- logical systems, Front. Quantum Sci. Technol. 3, 10.3389/frqst.2024.1466906 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Y. Kim, F. Bertagna, E. M. D’Souza, D. J. Heyes, L. O. Johannissen, E. T. Nery, A. Pantelias, A. Sanchez- Pedre˜ no Jimenez, L. Slocombe, M. G. Spencer, J. Al- Khalili, G. S. Engel, S. Hay, S. M. Hingley-Wilson, K. Jeevaratnam, A. R. Jones, D. R. Kattnig, R. Lewis, M. Sacchi, N. S. Scrutton, S. R. P. Silva, and J. Mc- Fadden, Quantum biology: An update an...

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    T. Ritz, S. Adem, and K. Schulten, A model for photoreceptor-based magnetoreception in birds, Biophys. J. 78, 707 (2000)

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    J. L. Ramsay, F. Schuhmann, I. A. Solov’yov, and D. R. Kattnig, Cryptochrome magnetoreception: Time course of photoactivation from non-equilibrium coarse-grained molecular dynamics, Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 26, 58 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Frederiksen, C

    A. Frederiksen, C. Langebrake, M. Hani´ c, G. Manthey, H. Mouritsen, M. Liedvogel, and I. A. Solov’yov, Mu- tational Study of the Tryptophan Tetrad Important for Electron Transfer in European Robin Cryptochrome 4a, ACS Omega 8, 26425 (2023). 12

    2023

  2. [10]

    S. Y. Wong, Y. Wei, H. Mouritsen, I. A. Solov’Yov, and P. J. Hore, Cryptochrome magnetoreception: four tryp- tophans could be better than three, J. R. Soc. Interface 18, 20210601 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    D. R. Kattnig, E. W. Evans, V. D´ ejean, C. A. Dod- son, M. I. Wallace, S. R. Mackenzie, C. R. Timmel, and P. J. Hore, Chemical amplification of magnetic field ef- fects relevant to avian magnetoreception, Nat. Chem 8, 384 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    D. Nohr, S. Franz, R. Rodriguez, B. Paulus, L.-O. Essen, S. Weber, and E. Schleicher, Extended Electron-Transfer in Animal Cryptochromes Mediated by a Tetrad of Aro- matic Amino Acids, Biophys. J. 111, 301 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    M¨ uller, J

    P. M¨ uller, J. Yamamoto, R. Martin, S. Iwai, and K. Bret- tel, Discovery and functional analysis of a 4th electron- transferring tryptophan conserved exclusively in animal cryptochromes and (6-4) photolyases, Chem. Commun. 51, 15502 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    Liedvogel, K

    M. Liedvogel, K. Maeda, K. Henbest, E. Schleicher, T. Si- mon, C. R. Timmel, P. J. Hore, and H. Mouritsen, Chem- ical magnetoreception: bird cryptochrome 1a is excited by blue light and forms long-lived radical-pairs, PLoS One 2, e1106 (2007)

    2007

  7. [15]

    Giovani, M

    B. Giovani, M. Byrdin, M. Ahmad, and K. Brettel, Light- induced electron transfer in a cryptochrome blue-light photoreceptor, Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 10, 489 (2003)

    2003

  8. [16]

    Deviers, F

    J. Deviers, F. Cailliez, A. de la Lande, and D. R. Kattnig, Avian cryptochrome 4 binds superoxide, Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 26, 11 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    K. M. Salerno, J. Domenico, N. Q. Le, K. Balakrishnan, R. J. McQuillen, C. D. Stiles, I. A. Solov’yov, and C. F. Martino, Long-Time Oxygen and Superoxide Localiza- tion in Arabidopsis thaliana Cryptochrome, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 63, 6756 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Arthaut, N

    L.-D. Arthaut, N. Jourdan, A. Mteyrek, M. Procopio, M. El-Esawi, A. d’Harlingue, P.-E. Bouchet, J. Witczak, T. Ritz, A. Klarsfeld, S. Birman, R. J. Usselman, U. Hoecker, C. F. Martino, and M. Ahmad, Blue-light induced accumulation of reactive oxygen species is a consequence of...

    2017

  11. [19]

    L. J. G. W. van Wilderen, G. Silkstone, M. Mason, J. J. van Thor, and M. T. Wilson, Kinetic studies on the ox- idation of semiquinone and hydroquinone forms of Ara- bidopsis cryptochrome by molecular oxygen, FEBS Open Bio 5, 885 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    M¨ uller and M

    P. M¨ uller and M. Ahmad, Light-activated cryptochrome reacts with molecular oxygen to form a flavin–superoxide radical pair consistent with magnetoreception, J. Biol. Chem. 286, 21033 (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    T. Ritz, R. Wiltschko, P. J. Hore, C. T. Rodgers, K. Stap- put, P. Thalau, C. R. Timmel, and W. Wiltschko, Mag- netic compass of birds is based on a molecule with opti- mal directional sensitivity, Biophys. J. 96, 3451 (2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    Massey, Activation of molecular oxygen by flavins and flavoproteins., J

    V. Massey, Activation of molecular oxygen by flavins and flavoproteins., J. Biol. Chem. 269, 22459 (1994)

    1994

  15. [23]

    J. Xu, L. E. Jarocha, T. Zollitsch, M. Konowalczyk, K. B. Henbest, S. Richert, M. J. Golesworthy, J. Schmidt, V. D´ ejean, D. J. C. Sowood, M. Bassetto, J. Luo, J. R. Walton, J. Fleming, Y. Wei, T. L. Pitcher, G. Moise, M. Herrmann, H. Yin, H. Wu, R. Bart¨ olke, S. J. K¨ aseha...

    2021

  16. [24]

    Kerpal, S

    C. Kerpal, S. Richert, J. G. Storey, S. Pillai, P. A. Lid- dell, D. Gust, S. R. Mackenzie, P. J. Hore, and C. R. Tim- mel, Chemical compass behaviour at microtesla magnetic fields strengthens the radical pair hypothesis of avian magnetoreception, Nat. Commun. 10, 1 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Maeda, K

    K. Maeda, K. B. Henbest, F. Cintolesi, I. Kuprov, C. T. Rodgers, P. A. Liddell, D. Gust, C. R. Timmel, and P. J. Hore, Chemical compass model of avian magnetorecep- tion, Nature 453, 387 (2008)

    2008

  18. [26]

    C. R. Timmel, U. Till, B. Brocklehurst, K. A. Mclauch- lan, and P. J. Hore, Effects of weak magnetic fields on free radical recombination reactions, Mol. Phys. 95, 71 (1998)

    1998

  19. [27]

    N. S. Babcock and D. R. Kattnig, Electron–electron dipo- lar interaction poses a challenge to the radical pair mech- anism of magnetoreception, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 11, 2414 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Efimova and P

    O. Efimova and P. J. Hore, Role of Exchange and Dipo- lar Interactions in the Radical Pair Model of the Avian Magnetic Compass, Biophys. J. 94, 1565 (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    A. R. O’Dea, A. F. Curtis, N. J. Green, C. R. Tinunel, and P. J. Hore, Influence of Dipolar Interactions on Radi- cal Pair Recombination Reactions Subject to Weak Mag- netic Fields, J. Phys. Chem. A 109, 869 (2005)

    2005

  22. [30]

    Gr¨ uning, L

    G. Gr¨ uning, L. Gerhards, S. Y. Wong, D. R. Kattnig, and I. A. Solov’yov, The Effect of Spin Relaxation on Mag- netic Compass Sensitivity in ErCry4a, ChemPhysChem 25, e202400129 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Worster, D

    S. Worster, D. R. Kattnig, and P. J. Hore, Spin relax- ation of radicals in cryptochrome and its role in avian magnetoreception, J. Chem. Phys. 145, 035104 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    D. R. Kattnig, I. A. Solov’yov, and P. J. Hore, Elec- tron spin relaxation in cryptochrome-based magnetore- ception, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 18, 12443 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Gr¨ uning, S

    G. Gr¨ uning, S. Y. Wong, L. Gerhards, F. Schuhmann, D. R. Kattnig, P. J. Hore, and I. A. Solov’yov, Effects of dynamical degrees of freedom on magnetic compass sen- sitivity: A comparison of plant and avian cryptochromes, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 144, 22902 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    L. D. Smith, J. Deviers, and D. R. Kattnig, Observations about utilitarian coherence in the avian compass, Sci. Rep. 12, 1 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Atkins, K

    C. Atkins, K. Bajpai, J. Rumball, and D. R. Kattnig, On the optimal relative orientation of radicals in the cryp- tochrome magnetic compass, J. Chem. Phys.151, 065103 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    L. D. Smith, J. Glatthard, F. T. Chowdhury, and D. R. Kattnig, On the optimality of the radical-pair quantum compass, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9, 035041 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Procopio and T

    M. Procopio and T. Ritz, The reference-probe model for a robust and optimal radical-pair-based magnetic compass sensor, J. Chem. Phys. 152, 065104 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    A. A. Lee, J. C. S. Lau, H. J. Hogben, T. Biskup, D. R. Kattnig, and P. J. Hore, Alternative radical pairs for cryptochrome-based magnetoreception, J. R. Soc. Inter- face 11, 20131063 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    T. C. Player and P. J. Hore, Viability of superoxide- containing radical pairs as magnetoreceptors, J. Chem. Phys. 151, 225101 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    T. Y. Karogodina, I. G. Dranov, S. V. Sergeeva, D. V. Stass, and U. E. Steiner, Kinetic magnetic-field effect in- 13 volving the small biologically relevant inorganic radicals NO and O2( ·-), ChemPhysChem 12, 1714 (2011)

    2011

  33. [41]

    H. J. Hogben, O. Efimova, N. Wagner-Rundell, C. R. Timmel, and P. J. Hore, Possible involvement of super- oxide and dioxygen with cryptochrome in avian magne- toreception: Origin of Zeeman resonances observed by in vivo EPR spectroscopy, Chem. Phys. Lett. 480, 118 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    Mondal and M

    P. Mondal and M. Huix-Rotllant, Theoretical insights into the formation and stability of radical oxygen species in cryptochromes, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 21, 8874 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    R. H. Keens, S. Bedkihal, and D. R. Kattnig, Mag- netosensitivity in dipolarly coupled three-Spin systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 096001 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Ramsay and D

    J. Ramsay and D. R. Kattnig, Radical triads, not pairs, may explain effects of hypomagnetic fields on neurogen- esis, PLoS Comput. Biol. 18, e1010519 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Deviers, F

    J. Deviers, F. Cailliez, A. De La Lande, and D. R. Kat- tnig, Anisotropic magnetic field effects in the re-oxidation of cryptochrome in the presence of scavenger radicals, J. Chem. Phys. 156, 025101 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    N. S. Babcock and D. R. Kattnig, Radical scavenging could answer the challenge posed by electron–electron dipolar interactions in the cryptochrome compass model, JACS Au 1, 2033 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    D. R. Kattnig and P. J. Hore, The sensitivity of a rad- ical pair compass magnetoreceptor can be significantly amplified by radical scavengers, Sci. Rep. 7, 1 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    Luo, Sensitivity enhancement of radical-pair magne- toreceptors as a result of spin decoherence, J

    J. Luo, Sensitivity enhancement of radical-pair magne- toreceptors as a result of spin decoherence, J. Chem. Phys. 160, 074306 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    J. L. Ramsay and D. R. Kattnig, Magnetoreception in cryptochrome enabled by one-dimensional radical mo- tion, AVS Quantum Sci. 5, 22601 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Burgarth, P

    D. Burgarth, P. Facchi, H. Nakazato, S. Pascazio, and K. Yuasa, Quantum Zeno Dynamics from General Quan- tum Operations, Quantum 4, 289 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    A. T. Dellis and I. K. Kominis, The quantum Zeno effect immunizes the avian compass against the deleterious ef- fects of exchange and dipolar interactions, Biosyst. 107, 153 (2012)

    2012

  44. [52]

    V. L. Berdinskii and I. N. Yakunin, Chemical Zeno ef- fect and its manifestations, Dokl. Phys. Chem. 421, 163 (2008)

    2008

  45. [53]

    W. M. Itano, D. J. Heinzen, J. J. Bollinger, and D. J. Wineland, Quantum Zeno effect, Phys. Rev. A 41, 2295 (1990)

    1990

  46. [54]

    Misra and E

    B. Misra and E. C. G. Sudarshan, The Zeno’s paradox in quantum theory, J. Math. Phys. 18, 756 (1977)

    1977

  47. [55]

    M. C. J. Denton, L. D. Smith, W. Xu, J. Pugsley, A. Toghill, and D. R. Kattnig, Magnetosensitivity of tightly bound radical pairs in cryptochrome is enabled by the quantum Zeno effect, Nat. Commun. 15, 10823 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    Chiesa, A

    A. Chiesa, A. Privitera, E. Macaluso, M. Mannini, R. Bittl, R. Naaman, M. R. Wasielewski, R. Sessoli, and S. Carretta, Chirality-Induced Spin Selectivity: An Enabling Technology for Quantum Applications, Adv. Mater. 35, 2300472 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    C. D. Aiello, J. M. Abendroth, M. Abbas, A. Afana- sev, S. Agarwal, A. S. Banerjee, D. N. Beratan, J. N. Belling, B. Berche, A. Botana, J. R. Caram, G. L. Celardo, G. Cuniberti, A. Garcia-Etxarri, A. Dianat, I. Diez-Perez, Y. Guo, R. Gutierrez, C. Herrmann, J. Hi- hath, S. Kal...

    2022

  50. [58]

    J. M. Abendroth, D. M. Stemer, B. P. Bloom, P. Roy, R. Naaman, D. H. Waldeck, P. S. Weiss, and P. C. Mon- dal, Spin Selectivity in Photoinduced Charge-Transfer Mediated by Chiral Molecules, ACS Nano 13, 4928 (2019)

    2019

  51. [59]

    B. P. Bloom, B. M. Graff, S. Ghosh, D. N. Beratan, and D. H. Waldeck, Chirality Control of Electron Transfer in Quantum Dot Assemblies, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 139, 9038 (2017)

    2017

  52. [60]

    Michaeli, N

    K. Michaeli, N. Kantor-Uriel, R. Naaman, and D. H. Waldeck, The electron’s spin and molecular chirality – how are they related and how do they affect life pro- cesses?, Chem. Soc. Rev. 45, 6478 (2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    M. R. Wasielewski, Energy, Charge, and Spin Transport in Molecules and Self-Assembled Nanostructures Inspired by Photosynthesis, J. Org. Chem. 71, 5051 (2006)

    2006

  54. [62]

    T. P. Fay, Chirality-Induced Spin Coherence in Electron Transfer Reactions, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.12, 1407 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    T. P. Fay and D. T. Limmer, Spin selective charge recom- bination in chiral donor–bridge–acceptor triads, J. Chem. Phys. 158, 194101 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    Vittmann, J

    C. Vittmann, J. Lim, D. Tamascelli, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Spin-Dependent Momentum Conservation of Electron–Phonon Scattering in Chirality-Induced Spin Selectivity, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 14, 340 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    Vittmann, R

    C. Vittmann, R. K. Kessing, J. Lim, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Interface-Induced Conservation of Momen- tum Leads to Chiral-Induced Spin Selectivity, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 13, 1791 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    T. P. Fay and D. T. Limmer, Origin of Chirality Induced Spin Selectivity in Photoinduced Electron Transfer, Nano Lett. 21, 6696 (2021)

    2021

  59. [67]

    Luo and P

    J. Luo and P. J. Hore, Chiral-induced spin selectivity in the formation and recombination of radical pairs: Cryp- tochrome magnetoreception and EPR detection, New J. Phys. 23, 043032 (2021)

    2021

  60. [68]

    Chiesa, M

    A. Chiesa, M. Chizzini, E. Garlatti, E. Salvadori, F. Tacchino, P. Santini, I. Tavernelli, R. Bittl, M. Chiesa, R. Sessoli, and S. Carretta, Assessing the Nature of Chiral-Induced Spin Selectivity by Magnetic Resonance, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 12, 6341 (2021)

    2021

  61. [69]

    B. P. Bloom, Y. Paltiel, R. Naaman, and D. H. Waldeck, Chiral Induced Spin Selectivity, Chem. Rev. 124, 1950 (2024)

    2024

  62. [70]

    Tiwari and V

    Y. Tiwari and V. S. Poonia, Quantum coherence en- hancement by the chirality-induced spin selectivity effect in the radical-pair mechanism, Phys. Rev. A 107, 052406 (2023)

    2023

  63. [71]

    Tiwari and V

    Y. Tiwari and V. S. Poonia, Role of chiral-induced spin selectivity in the radical pair mechanism of avian mag- netoreception, Phys. Rev. E 106, 064409 (2022)

    2022

  64. [72]

    T. P. Fay, L. P. Lindoy, and D. E. Manolopoulos, Elec- tron spin relaxation in radical pairs: Beyond the Redfield approximation, J. Chem. Phys. 151, 154117 (2019). 14

    2019

  65. [73]

    B. D. Zoltowski, Y. Chelliah, A. Wickramaratne, L. Jarocha, N. Karki, W. Xu, H. Mouritsen, P. J. Hore, R. E. Hibbs, C. B. Green, and J. S. Takahashi, Chemical and structural analysis of a photoactive vertebrate cryp- tochrome from pigeon, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116, 19449 (2019)

    2019

  66. [74]

    Baumgratz, M

    T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Quantify- ing coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140401 (2014)

    2014

  67. [75]

    Kaptein, Chemically induced dynamic nuclear po- larization

    R. Kaptein, Chemically induced dynamic nuclear po- larization. VIII. Spin dynamics and diffusion of radical pairs, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 94, 6251 (1972)

    1972

  68. [76]

    Maeda, A

    K. Maeda, A. J. Robinson, K. B. Henbest, H. J. Hogben, T. Biskup, M. Ahmad, E. Schleicher, S. Weber, C. R. Timmel, and P. J. Hore, Magnetically sensitive light- induced reactions in cryptochrome are consistent with its proposed role as a magnetoreceptor, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci....

    2012

  69. [77]

    Carmeli, K

    I. Carmeli, K. S. Kumar, O. Heifler, C. Carmeli, and R. Naaman, Spin Selectivity in Electron Transfer in Pho- tosystem I, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 53, 8953 (2014)

    2014

  70. [78]

    H. J. Eckvahl, N. A. Tcyrulnikov, A. Chiesa, J. M. Bradley, R. M. Young, S. Carretta, M. D. Krzyaniak, and M. R. Wasielewski, Direct observation of chirality- induced spin selectivity in electron donor–acceptor molecules, Science 382, 197 (2023)

    2023

  71. [79]

    G. E. Katsoprinakis, A. T. Dellis, and I. K. Kominis, Coherent triplet excitation suppresses the heading error of the avian compass, New J. Phys. 12, 085016 (2010)

    2010

  72. [80]

    N. Lin, M. Tsuji, I. Bruzzese, A. Chen, M. Vrionides, N. Jian, F. Kittur, T. P. Fay, and T. Mani, Molec- ular Engineering of Emissive Molecular Qubits Based on Spin-Correlated Radical Pairs, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 10.1021/jacs.4c16164 (2025)

    2025 doi

  73. [81]

    Mani, Molecular qubits based on photogenerated spin-correlated radical pairs for quantum sensing, Chem

    T. Mani, Molecular qubits based on photogenerated spin-correlated radical pairs for quantum sensing, Chem. Phys. Rev. 3, 021301 (2022)

    2022

  74. [82]

    F. T. Chowdhury, M. C. Denton, D. C. Bonser, and D. R. Kattnig, Quantum Control of Radical-Pair Dynam- ics beyond Time-Local Optimization, PRX Quantum 5, 020303 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

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