Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 70 references

Stochastic size control of self-assembled filaments

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a fixed set of m species with promiscuous sequential binding yields equilibrium filaments whose mean length and width are set independently, with the spread shrinking as the species count grows.

desk verdict The equilibrium result is clean and publishable, but the cited SI moment formula has a sign error (m=1 gives a negative mean) that blocks reproduction of the kinetic parameters and must be fixed before acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04985 v1 pith:UQTIHGRG submitted 2025-07-07 cond-mat.soft

Maximilian C. Hübl , Carl P. Goodrich This is my paper
classification cond-mat.soft
keywords self-assemblyfilamentlengthcontrolsemiaddressableassemblyequilibriumdistributionErlangconfigurationalentropyhierarchicalpromiscuousbinding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks how assembling particles can be told to stop growing at a target size. In ordinary one-species assembly, filament lengths are exponentially distributed, so the spread is always comparable to the mean; in fully addressable assembly, the number of species must grow with the target length. The authors propose a semiaddressable design in which each of $m$ species forms its own filament and also binds to the next species, so a complete filament is a sequence of $m$ random-length segments. Because the segments are independent and exponentially distributed, the total length approaches a shifted Erlang distribution---the usual distribution of a sum of independent exponential lengths---whose mean is set by a single binding-energy/concentration parameter and whose relative width falls as $1/\sqrt{m}$. The paper argues that this gives independent, user-defined control of mean and width with a fixed, experimentally reasonable number of species.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the partition function of a length-$n$ filament, which counts every way to decompose it into $k$ sequential single-species segments: $(m-k+1)\binom{n-1}{k-1}$ choices weighted by $e^{k\beta\Delta\varepsilon}$ and the bulk factor $e^{-\lambda n}$. This combinatorial multiplicity is the configurational entropy of the domain walls between species; its competition with the bulk free-energy penalty $\lambda$ is what produces a peaked, tunable length distribution. In the long-filament regime the same counting reduces to a shifted Erlang distribution.

What would settle it

An equilibrium experiment with programmable particles for $m=1,5,10,20$ species at fixed target mean length should show relative width falling as $m^{-1/2}$ and a mean following $\langle n\rangle=m(1/2+1/\lambda)$ as concentrations are varied; a clear deviation from either scaling would falsify the design claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that equilibrium size control does not require one species per target length. In the long-filament limit, the semiaddressable length distribution becomes the shifted Erlang distribution $p(n)\propto (n-m/2)^{m-1}e^{-\lambda(n-m/2)}$, with mean $\langle n\rangle = m(1/2+1/\lambda)$ and standard deviation $\sigma = \sqrt{m}/\lambda$. Here $\lambda=-\beta(\varepsilon_1+\mu)$ is set by the same-species binding energy, chemical potential, and temperature, so the mean can be tuned through binding energies or concentrations without changing the species count $m$, while the relative width $\sigma/\langle n\rangle$ is controlled by $m$. Nonaddressable assembly and fully addressable assembly appear as the limiting cases $m=1$ and large $m$.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim assumes that every compatible binding site encounters a partner at a constant rate and that bonds break at rates depending only on whether they are same-species or cross-species bonds; if real assembly has length-dependent or sequence-dependent rates, the predicted speed-up and the quality-time trade-off could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The equilibrium mean filament length can be dialed by changing binding energies or particle concentrations through $\lambda$, with no change in the number of species $m$.
  • For a fixed target mean, adding species sharpens the distribution: the relative width $\sigma/\langle n\rangle$ scales as $1/\sqrt{m}$ in the long-filament regime, so quality is a smooth function of species cost.
  • The nonaddressable limit $m=1$ gives the familiar exponential distribution with $\sigma\sim\langle n\rangle$, and large $m$ approaches the fully addressable limit; the design interpolates between cheap broad assembly and expensive narrow assembly.
  • A hierarchical protocol that first equilibrates single-species segments and then activates cross-species bonds reaches a near-equilibrium length distribution in roughly five orders of magnitude less time than direct assembly.
  • Adding a second hierarchy level in the stacking direction produces two-dimensional sheets whose width and height can be targeted separately, with a total species count that does not scale with the final structure size.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is that the shifted-Erlang prediction should transfer to any ordered multiblock polymer, such as DNA tile ribbons or sequence-defined copolymers, wherever allowed adjacencies form a linear chain and binding is promiscuous within that chain.
  • The uniform-chemical-potential construction forces strongly nonuniform species concentrations, with inner species more abundant than edge species; measuring that concentration profile in a real experiment would test the equilibrium premise more directly than measuring lengths alone.
  • The hierarchy idea could in principle be iterated dimension by dimension: activating one bond type per stage would make assembly time and species count grow with the number of dimensions rather than with target size, a scaling the paper illustrates for two dimensions but does not explore further.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a 'semiaddressable' self-assembly scheme for linear filaments: m particle species bind promiscuously in sequence, so that a filament's length is the sum of m exponentially distributed single-species segments. The authors derive the equilibrium length distribution, show that in the large-mean limit it becomes a shifted Erlang distribution with independently tunable mean and width, and use Gillespie simulations to demonstrate a quality-versus-time trade-off and a hierarchical protocol that reportedly speeds assembly by more than five orders of magnitude. An appendix extends the idea to two-dimensional sheets via vertical stacking of size-controlled filaments.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a conceptually simple and experimentally plausible route to size-controlled filaments with a fixed number of particle species, avoiding linear scaling of species count with target length. The partition-function derivation leading to Eqs. (2), (4), and (5) is clean, parameter-free, and yields explicit, testable predictions for the mean and width of the length distribution, which is a genuine strength. The kinetic simulations support the qualitative trade-off between assembly quality and time. The main weakness is that the analytical moment formulas in the Supplementary Information contain an apparent sign error that breaks the reproducibility of the kinetic calibration, and the headline speedup is measured at 97% of the target mean rather than at full equilibration.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplementary Information, Section I.B, Eq. (S11)] As printed, Eq. (S11) for the mean filament length is internally inconsistent: setting m=1 gives a negative value, while the single-species distribution in Eq. (1) has mean +1/(1-e^{-λ}). Specifically, for m=1 the numerator becomes (q-1)^3 and the denominator becomes (1-q)^3(1-e^{-λ}), so the ratio is -1/(1-e^{-λ}). Since Table S1 and the kinetic curves in Fig. 3 are calibrated by 'numerically inverting the analytical relations shown in Supplementary Information', the reported particle numbers, binding energies, equilibration times, and the claimed five-orders-of-magnitude speedup cannot be reproduced from the equations as written. This does not invalidate the partition-function derivation of Eq. (2) or the shifted-Erlang limit in Eqs. (4)-(5), but the SI moment machinery must be corrected and re-verified before the kinetic claims can be assessed.
  2. [Main text, Fig. 3 and inset; Abstract] The hierarchical speedup of 'over five orders of magnitude' is measured at time τ97, the first time at which the average length reaches 97% of its equilibrium value, and the authors explicitly note that the hierarchical system is not fully equilibrated at τ97 and that the final relaxation is governed by the same long timescale as the non-hierarchical system. The abstract and concluding statements nevertheless present the speedup as a general property of the assembly process. I recommend qualifying the claim, e.g., by reporting the time to equilibrium as well as τ97, or by stating clearly that the acceleration applies to reaching a near-equilibrium state rather than to full equilibration.
  3. [Appendix, 'Filament assembly kinetics' first paragraph; 'Hierarchical assembly' paragraph in main text] The quantitative kinetic results, including the reported speedup, rest on a specific rate model: a constant encounter rate α/V for all compatible pairs, length-independent bond-breakage rates δ1 and δ2, and the relationship α/δ = e^{βε}/(8π^2 φ0). The paper does not discuss how sensitive the conclusions are to these assumptions, nor does it test alternatives such as end-only association or length-dependent fragmentation. Since the abstract claims immediate experimental applicability, I ask the authors to state more explicitly that the speedup and trade-off are model predictions and to include a sensitivity test or a discussion of the expected deviations in real DNA-origami or supramolecular systems.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Supplementary Information, Section I.A] In the sentence defining C_na and C_sa, 'm > 2' should read 'm ≥ 2', since the semiaddressable formula applies for m=2 as well.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption and Table S1] The symbols σ̄ and σ̃ are used without definition in the caption and table header; please define them explicitly (σ̄ = ⟨n⟩/√m and σ̃ = σ/σ̄) so the figure is self-contained.
  3. [Supplementary Information, Section I.B, Eq. (S12)] Given the sign error in Eq. (S11), Eq. (S12) for the second moment should also be rechecked, and the authors should add consistency checks such as the m=1 limits ⟨n⟩ = 1/(1-e^{-λ}) and ⟨n²⟩ = (1+e^{-λ})/(1-e^{-λ})².
  4. [Appendix, 'Assembly of two-dimensional sheets'] The 2D extension relies on several strong assumptions (rigid filaments, no branching, infinitely strong final assembly bonds, no binding offsets) that are stated only in the Appendix; the main text should clearly mark this extension as a proof-of-principle rather than a validated prediction.
  5. [Main text, 'Hierarchical assembly' paragraph] The choice ⟨nna⟩ = ⟨n⟩/(2m) for the initial single-species filament length is introduced with a heuristic argument ('roughly 50% chance'); the authors should note that this choice is not optimized and that the reported speedup may depend on it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the equilibrium distribution, moment formulas, and kinetic claims are derived from stated partition-function and rate-model assumptions with no fitted parameters, and the only self-citation is for a prior design concept, not for the derivation.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Equation (2) of the main text is derived directly from the filament partition function written in SI Eq. (4), with the counting factor (m-k+1) C(n-1,k-1) and energetic weights e^{k beta Delta epsilon} following from the stated binding rules. The asymptotic Erlang form, Eqs. (4)-(5), is obtained by restricting to complete filaments and approximating the binomial coefficient, not by assuming the target result. The mean and width are then consequences of the derived distribution, not inputs used to define lambda. The simulation parameters in Table S1 are chosen by inverting the analytical relations to hit target widths, which is inverse design rather than fitting a prediction to data; the kinetic simulations then test the rate model independently. The only self-citation, [51], is used to name the 'semiaddressable' design concept and does not supply any load-bearing mathematical fact; no uniqueness theorem or unverified prior claim is invoked to force the paper's conclusions. The apparent sign inconsistency in SI Eq. (11) that was flagged externally concerns reproducibility of the moment formulas as printed, which is a correctness or typographical issue, not circularity: it does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. Therefore no circular step is present.

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

The central claim rests on a small set of stated modeling assumptions: equal chemical potentials, two bond energies, one-particle-reducible chains, and detailed-balance kinetics. No free parameters are fitted to data. The 2D extension introduces additional strong assumptions, including irreversible final bonds.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption All m particle species are supplied at equal chemical potential mu, same-species binding energy epsilon1 is uniform, and cross-species binding energy epsilon2 is uniform.
    Introduced in main text before Eq. (2); simplifies the partition function and is not derived from more basic physics.
  • domain assumption Filaments are one-particle-reducible: interactions only between nearest neighbors, and the per-bond entropy omega is the same for both bond types and can be absorbed into the binding energies.
    SI Eq. (2) and Eq. (3). This neglects non-nearest-neighbor interactions and sequence-dependent entropy.
  • domain assumption Kinetic rates follow detailed balance with constant encounter rate alpha/V and length-independent breakage rates delta1 and delta2, related to binding energies by alpha/delta = exp(beta epsilon)/(8 pi^2 phi0).
    Appendix section 'Filament assembly kinetics'. Underlies the equilibration-time and hierarchy speedup claims.
  • ad hoc to paper For the 2D extension, vertical binding energy between two filaments is epsilon_v,0 times min(n_i,n_j), filaments are rigid, no branching or overshoot, and final assembly bonds are infinitely strong.
    Appendix section 'Assembly of two-dimensional sheets'. Strong modeling assumptions specific to the paper's demonstration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stochastic size control of self-assembled filaments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UQTIHGRG

@misc{pith2026250704985,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stochastic size control of self-assembled filaments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UQTIHGRG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04985}
}
read the original abstract

Controlling the size and shape of assembled structures is a fundamental challenge in self-assembly, and is highly relevant in material design and biology. Here, we show that specific, but promiscuous, short-range binding interactions make it possible to economically assemble linear filaments of user-defined length. Our approach leads to independent control over the mean and width of the filament size distribution and allows us to smoothly explore design trade-offs between assembly quality (spread in size) and cost (number of particle species). We employ a simple hierarchical assembly protocol to minimize assembly times, and show that multiple stages of hierarchy make it possible to extend our approach to the assembly of higher-dimensional structures. Our work provides a simple and experimentally straightforward solution to size control that is immediately applicable to a broad range of systems, from DNA origami assemblies to supramolecular polymers and beyond.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04985 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Different filament assembly strategies. (a) Nonad [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Equilibrium properties of semiaddressable filaments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Kinetics of semiaddressable filaments. Time depen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Size distribution of hierarchically assembled two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Fig.3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    vertical

    0 − 1 2 FIG. 2. Equilibrium properties of semiaddressable filaments. (a) Scaled equilibrium length distributions for different num- bers of particle species m. Target lengths range from ⟨n⟩ = 500 − 1000, and are well approximated by the large– ⟨n⟩ limit. The distributions corresponding to different target lengths are shown in different lightness and converge ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Alberts, A

    B. Alberts, A. Johnson, J. Lewis, D. Morgan, M. Raff, K. Roberts, and P. Walter, Molecular Biology of the Cell , sixth ed. (Garland Science, 2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Rhind, Cell-size control, Current Biology 31, R1414 (2021)

    N. Rhind, Cell-size control, Current Biology 31, R1414 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    M. B. Ginzberg, R. Kafri, and M. Kirschner, On being the right (cell) size, Science 348, 1245075 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    M. F. Hagan and G. M. Grason, Equilibrium mechanisms of self-limiting assembly, Reviews of Modern Physics 93, 025008 (2021), 2007.01927

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Y. Kim, P. Dalhaimer, D. A. Christian, and D. E. Dis- cher, Polymeric worm micelles as nano-carriers for drug delivery, Nanotechnology 16, S484 (2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Rad-Malekshahi, L

    M. Rad-Malekshahi, L. Lempsink, M. Amidi, W. E. Hen- nink, and E. Mastrobattista, Biomedical Applications of Self-Assembling Peptides, Bioconjugate Chemistry 27, 3 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    C. Sigl, E. M. Willner, W. Engelen, J. A. Kretzmann, K. Sachenbacher, A. Liedl, F. Kolbe, F. Wilsch, S. A. Aghvami, U. Protzer, M. F. Hagan, S. Fraden, and H. Di- etz, Programmable icosahedral shell system for virus trapping, Nature Materials 20, 1281 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Vukusic and J

    P. Vukusic and J. R. Sambles, Photonic structures in biology, Nature 424, 852 (2003)

    2003

  2. [10]

    E. R. Dufresne, H. Noh, V. Saranathan, S. G. J. Mochrie, H. Cao, and R. O. Prum, Self-assembly of amorphous bio- photonic nanostructures by phase separation, Soft Mat- ter 5, 1792 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    Satyabola, A

    D. Satyabola, A. Prasad, H. Yan, and X. Zhou, Bioin- spired Photonic Systems Directed by Designer DNA Nanostructures, ACS Applied Optical Materials 3, 552 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    Hayakawa, T

    D. Hayakawa, T. E. Videbæk, G. M. Grason, and W. B. Rogers, Symmetry-Guided Inverse Design of Self- Assembling Multiscale DNA Origami Tilings, ACS Nano 18, 19169 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Hensley, T

    A. Hensley, T. E. Videbæk, H. Seyforth, W. M. Jacobs, and W. B. Rogers, Macroscopic photonic single crystals via seeded growth of DNA-coated colloids, Nature Com- munications 14, 4237 (2023), 2303.04074

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    F. A. Aldaye, A. L. Palmer, and H. F. Sleiman, Assem- bling Materials with DNA as the Guide, Science 321, 1795 (2008)

    2008

  7. [15]

    A. K. Pearce, T. R. Wilks, M. C. Arno, and R. K. O’Reilly, Synthesis and applications of anisotropic nanoparticles with precisely defined dimensions, Nature Reviews Chemistry 5, 21 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Michelson, A

    A. Michelson, A. Subramanian, K. Kisslinger, N. Ti- wale, S. Xiang, E. Shen, J. S. Kahn, D. Nykypanchuk, H. Yan, C.-Y. Nam, and O. Gang, Three-dimensional nanoscale metal, metal oxide, and semiconductor frame- works through DNA-programmable assembly and tem- plating, Science A...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Michelson, L

    A. Michelson, L. Shani, J. S. Kahn, D. C. Re- deker, W.-I. Lee, K. R. DeOlivares, K. Kisslinger, N. Tiwale, H. Yan, A. Pattammattel, C.-Y. Nam, V. S. Pribiag, and O. Gang, Scalable fabrication of Chip-integrated 3D-nanostructured electronic devices via DNA-programmable assembl...

    2025

  10. [18]

    Hayakawa, T

    D. Hayakawa, T. E. Videbaek, D. M. Hall, H. Fang, C. Sigl, E. Feigl, H. Dietz, S. Fraden, M. F. Hagan, G. M. Grason, and W. B. Rogers, Geometrically programmed self-limited assembly of tubules using DNA origami col- loids, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, e...

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    T. E. Videbæk, D. Hayakawa, G. M. Grason, M. F. Ha- gan, S. Fraden, and W. B. Rogers, Economical routes to size-specific assembly of self-closing structures, Science Advances 10, eado5979 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    C. M. Duque, D. M. Hall, B. Tyukodi, M. F. Hagan, C. D. Santangelo, and G. M. Grason, Limits of economy and fidelity for programmable assembly of size-controlled triply periodic polyhedra, Proceedings of the National 7 Academy of Sciences 121, e2315648121 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    R. Saha, D. Hayakawa, T. E. Videbaek, M. Price, W.- S. Wei, J. Pombo, D. Duke, G. Arya, G. M. Grason, W. B. Rogers, and S. Fraden, Modular programming of interaction and geometric specificity enables assembly of complex DNA origami nanostructures, arXiv (2025), 2502.05388

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Sciortino, S

    F. Sciortino, S. Mossa, E. Zaccarelli, and P. Tartaglia, Equilibrium Cluster Phases and Low-Density Arrested Disordered States: The Role of Short-Range Attraction and Long-Range Repulsion, Physical Review Letters 93, 055701 (2004), cond-mat/0312161

    2004 arXiv

  15. [23]

    T. D. Nguyen, B. A. Schultz, N. A. Kotov, and S. C. Glotzer, Generic, phenomenological, on-the-fly renormal- ized repulsion model for self-limited organization of ter- minal supraparticle assemblies, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences 112, E3161 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    G. M. Grason, Perspective: Geometrically frustrated as- semblies, The Journal of Chemical Physics 145, 110901 (2016), 1608.07833

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Lenz and T

    M. Lenz and T. A. Witten, Geometrical frustration yields fibre formation in self-assembly, Nature Physics 13, 1100 (2017), 1705.08334

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    H. L. Roy, M. M. Terzi, and M. Lenz, Collective deforma- tion modes promote fibrous self-assembly in deformable particles, Physical Review X 15, 011022 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Koehler, M

    L. Koehler, M. Eder, C. Karfusehr, V. Ouazan-Reboul, P. Ronceray, F. C. Simmel, and M. Lenz, Topologi- cal defect engineering enables size and shape control in self-assembly, arXiv 10.48550/arxiv.2504.13073 (2025), 2504.13073

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    Johann, C

    D. Johann, C. Erlenkämper, and K. Kruse, Length Regu- lation of Active Biopolymers by Molecular Motors, Phys- ical Review Letters 108, 258103 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Melbinger, L

    A. Melbinger, L. Reese, and E. Frey, Microtubule Length Regulation by Molecular Motors, Physical Review Let- ters 108, 258104 (2012), 1204.5655

    2012 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Striebel, F

    M. Striebel, F. Brauns, and E. Frey, Length Regulation Drives Self-Organization in Filament-Motor Mixtures, Physical Review Letters 129, 238102 (2022), 2109.05091

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Kuan and M

    H.-S. Kuan and M. D. Betterton, Biophysics of filament length regulation by molecular motors, Physical Biology 10, 036004 (2013), 1302.3196

    2013 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Datta, M

    S. Datta, M. L. Saha, and P. J. Stang, Hierarchical As- semblies of Supramolecular Coordination Complexes, Ac- counts of Chemical Research 51, 2047 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Murugan, J

    A. Murugan, J. Zou, and M. P. Brenner, Undesired usage and the robust self-assembly of heterogeneous structures, Nature Communications 6, 6203 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    M. He, J. P. Gales, E. Ducrot, Z. Gong, G.-R. Yi, S. Sacanna, and D. J. Pine, Colloidal diamond, Nature 585, 524 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    C. A. Mirkin, R. L. Letsinger, R. C. Mucic, and J. J. Storhoff, A DNA-based method for rationally assembling nanoparticles into macroscopic materials, Nature 382, 607 (1996)

    1996

  28. [36]

    W. B. Rogers and V. N. Manoharan, Programming col- loidal phase transitions with DNA strand displacement, Science 347, 639 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Y. Wang, Y. Wang, D. R. Breed, V. N. Manoharan, L. Feng, A. D. Hollingsworth, M. Weck, and D. J. Pine, Colloids with valence and specific directional bonding, Nature 491, 51 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Y. Wang, Y. Wang, X. Zheng, E. Ducrot, J. S. Yodh, M. Weck, and D. J. Pine, Crystallization of DNA-coated colloids, Nature Communications 6, 7253 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    Valignat, O

    M.-P. Valignat, O. Theodoly, J. C. Crocker, W. B. Russel, and P. M. Chaikin, Reversible self-assembly and directed assembly of DNA-linked micrometer-sized colloids, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102, 4225 (2005)

    2005

  32. [40]

    W. M. Jacobs and W. B. Rogers, Assembly of Complex Colloidal Systems Using DNA, Annual Review of Con- densed Matter Physics 16, 443 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Sacanna, W

    S. Sacanna, W. T. M. Irvine, P. M. Chaikin, and D. J. Pine, Lock and key colloids, Nature 464, 575 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    Sacanna, M

    S. Sacanna, M. Korpics, K. Rodriguez, L. Colón- Meléndez, S.-H. Kim, D. J. Pine, and G.-R. Yi, Shap- ing colloids for self-assembly, Nature Communications 4, 1688 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    Huang, S

    P.-S. Huang, S. E. Boyken, and D. Baker, The coming of age of de novo protein design, Nature 537, 320 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    N. P. King, W. Sheffler, M. R. Sawaya, B. S. Vollmar, J. P. Sumida, I. André, T. Gonen, T. O. Yeates, and D. Baker, Computational Design of Self-Assembling Pro- tein Nanomaterials with Atomic Level Accuracy, Science 336, 1171 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    T. F. A. d. Greef and E. W. Meijer, Supramolecular poly- mers, Nature 453, 171 (2008)

    2008

  38. [46]

    T. Aida, E. W. Meijer, and S. I. Stupp, Functional Supramolecular Polymers, Science 335, 813 (2012)

    2012

  39. [47]

    H. M. M. t. Eikelder, B. Adelizzi, A. R. A. Palmans, and A. J. Markvoort, Equilibrium Model for Supramolecular Copolymerizations, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 123, 6627 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    E. D. Klein, R. W. Perry, and V. N. Manoharan, Physical interpretation of the partition function for colloidal clus- ters, Physical Review E 98, 032608 (2018), 1806.00155

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    A. I. Curatolo, O. Kimchi, C. P. Goodrich, R. K. Krueger, and M. P. Brenner, A computational toolbox for the as- sembly yield of complex and heterogeneous structures, Nature Communications 14, 8328 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Holmes-Cerfon, S

    M. Holmes-Cerfon, S. J. Gortler, and M. P. Brenner, A geometrical approach to computing free-energy land- scapes from short-ranged potentials, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, E5 (2013), 1210.5451

    2013 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Holmes-Cerfon, Sticky-Sphere Clusters, Annual Re- view of Condensed Matter Physics 8, 77 (2016), 1709.05138

    M. Holmes-Cerfon, Sticky-Sphere Clusters, Annual Re- view of Condensed Matter Physics 8, 77 (2016), 1709.05138

    2016 arXiv

  44. [52]

    M. C. Hübl and C. P. Goodrich, Accessing Semiaddress- able Self-Assembly with Efficient Structure Enumeration, Physical Review Letters 134, 058204 (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    M. C. Hübl, T. E. Videbæk, D. Hayakawa, W. B. Rogers, and C. P. Goodrich, The polyhedral struc- ture underlying programmable self-assembly, arXiv 10.48550/arxiv.2501.16107 (2025), 2501.16107

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    Strictly speaking, the distribution is geometric, since n is an integer and 1 ≤ n < ∞

  47. [55]

    M. P. Brenner, Mathematics and Materials: Ideas about Self-Assembly , IAS/Park City Mathematics Series, Vol. 23 (American Mathematical Society, 2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    This remains true if the two-fold symmetry of a filament is exploited, which cuts down the required particle species by half, but leaves the prohibitive linear scaling unaf- fected

  49. [57]

    The length of ⟨n⟩/(2m) is necessary, since there is a roughly 50% chance a single-species segment binds with another one of the same species before encountering a 8 filament of the subsequent species

  50. [58]

    O. G. Hayes, B. E. Partridge, and C. A. Mirkin, Encoding hierarchical assembly pathways of proteins with DNA, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, e2106808118 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    Xiong, D

    H. Xiong, D. v. d. Lelie, and O. Gang, Phase Behavior of Nanoparticles Assembled by DNA Linkers, Physical Review Letters 102, 015504 (2009)

    2009

  52. [60]

    Lowensohn, B

    J. Lowensohn, B. Oyarzún, G. N. Paliza, B. M. Mognetti, and W. B. Rogers, Linker-Mediated Phase Behavior of DNA-Coated Colloids, Physical Review X 9, 041054 (2019), 1902.08883

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    D. T. Gillespie, Stochastic Simulation of Chemical Kinet- ics, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 58, 35 (2007)

    2007

  54. [64]

    W. H. Stockmayer, Theory of Molecular Size Distribu- tion and Gel Formation in Branched-Chain Polymers, The Journal of Chemical Physics 11, 45 (1943)

    1943

  55. [65]

    P. G. J. v. Dongen and M. H. Ernst, Kinetics of reversible polymerization, Journal of Statistical Physics 37, 301 (1984). Supplementary Information: Stochastic size control of self-assembled filaments Maximilian C. Hübl and Carl P. Goodrich Institute of Science and Technology A...

    1984

  56. [66]

    Kardar, Statistical Physics of Particles (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    M. Kardar, Statistical Physics of Particles (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    2007

  57. [67]

    The notation in this section is somewhat different from the notation in the previous section in that the index ρn now refers to the length of a filament, and not to the concentration of a specific particle species

  58. [68]

    R. D. Vigil, On equilibrium solutions of aggrega- tion–fragmentation problems, Journal of Colloid and In- terface Science 336, 642 (2009)

    2009

  59. [69]

    van Kampen, Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry (Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 1992)

    N. van Kampen, Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry (Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 1992)

    1992

  60. [70]

    The notation in this section is different from the one in the previous section in that α does not refer to a specific particle species, but to the aggregation rate of filaments

  61. [71]

    P. J. Blatz and A. V. Tobolsky, Note on the Kinet- ics of Systems Manifesting Simultaneous Polymerization- Depolymerization Phenomena, The Journal of Physical Chemistry 49, 77 (1945)

    1945

  62. [72]

    P. G. J. v. Dongen and M. H. Ernst, Kinetics of re- versible polymerization, Journal of Statistical Physics 37, 301 (1984). 5 n 0 100 200 30 0 p ( n ) 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 1 0 e q u i li b ri um h i er ar c h i c a l τ ₉ ₇ FIG. S1. Length distribution during hierarchical ...

    1984

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.