Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Three-slab model for the dielectric permittivity of a lipid bilayer

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Local dielectric permittivity breaks down inside a lipid membrane's head-group regions, and a coarse-grained three-slab model—two anisotropic head slabs around a vacuum-permittivity tail slab—restores a meaningful, tensorial description tha

desk verdict Useful three-slab model for membrane electrostatics with a genuinely out-of-sample 70 mV/nm test; the main caveat is thickness-definition robustness parked in the SM. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.18852 v2 pith:IUTS5OCE submitted 2026-02-21 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.stat-mechphysics.bio-ph

M.M.B. Sheraj , Amaresh Sahu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.stat-mechphysics.bio-ph
keywords dielectricpermittivitylipidbilayerthree-slabmodelmoleculardynamicsdipolepotentialanisotropicmembraneelectrostaticscoarse-graining
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 argues that the standard notion of a position-dependent dielectric permittivity fails inside a lipid bilayer's head-group regions: the local out-of-plane permittivity computed from molecular dynamics takes unphysical negative values there. To fix this, the authors propose treating the membrane as three uniform dielectric slabs—one for each head-group region and one for the tail region—with the head slabs given anisotropic permittivities and an intrinsic surface bound charge that reproduces the membrane dipole potential at zero field. They show that slab parameters fitted from MD simulations capture both the zero-field potential profile and the membrane's response to out-of-plane electric fields up to 70 mV/nm, even though the local out-of-plane permittivity is ill-defined. The key move is averaging over slab widths, which introduces length scales larger than the atomic-scale field gradients that cause the local description to fail. If correct, this gives a few-parameter continuum model of membrane electrostatics that can replace the customary single-slab, scalar-permittivity idealization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the three-slab decomposition: a central tail slab of thickness 2δt with permittivity ε₀I, flanked by two head-group slabs of thickness δh with anisotropic permittivity (in-plane εh, out-of-plane ε⊥h) and equal-and-opposite bound surface charges ±σh on their faces, representing the intrinsic zero-field polarization. Four equations determine the four independent parameters by matching MD data: Eq. (8) equates the zero-field dipole potential, Eq. (9) matches the integrated in-plane permittivity, Eq. (10) matches the integrated change in out-of-plane polarization under an applied field, and Eq. (11) matches its first moment. This integral-matching procedure effectively

What would settle it

Re-fit the four slab parameters using an alternative membrane-thickness definition (e.g., 3.9–4.2 nm from atomic positions or ~5 nm from electrostatic influence) and check whether the predicted out-of-plane potential and polarization changes still match the MD results at 70 mV/nm; a significant mismatch would show that the model's apparent success depends on the thickness convention.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that while the local out-of-plane permittivity ε⊥(z) is ill-posed in the head-group region—its reciprocal crosses zero, giving unbounded or negative values—a three-slab composite model with slab-averaged parameters restores a physical, tensorial description of membrane electrostatics. For DPPC bilayers, the fitted head-group slabs have in-plane permittivity ≈160ε₀ and out-of-plane permittivity ≈16ε₀, while the tail slab has vacuum permittivity; the model reproduces the zero-field dipole potential and the change in potential and polarization under out-of-plane fields up to 70 mV/nm, with in-plane response linear up to 30 mV/nm. The central result is that coarse-graining

Load-bearing premise

The membrane thickness δm is set by an operational criterion (where the second derivative of the in-plane permittivity vanishes in MD data) rather than by a physical observable, and all four fitted slab parameters inherit that arbitrary choice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the three-slab model is correct, continuum electromechanical theories of membranes can adopt a few-parameter, anisotropic dielectric description instead of a single scalar permittivity, enabling more faithful predictions of flexoelectricity and field-induced vesicle deformation.
  • The model implies that the membrane's response to electric fields is direction-dependent: in-plane fields saturate linearly at about 30 mV/nm, while out-of-plane fields remain linear to at least 70 mV/nm.
  • The presence of a large in-plane head-group permittivity (order 160ε₀) means that tangential electric fields are strongly screened in the head-group region, which could alter estimates of local field strengths experienced by embedded proteins or pores.
  • Because the intrinsic dipole potential is captured by slab-bound surface charges, the model provides a direct bridge between MD-computed polarization densities and the potential difference that biology reads as a membrane voltage.
  • The approach is generalizable to any interface where the local out-of-plane permittivity is ill-defined, including water near solid surfaces, as the authors note.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The slab parameters are not unique: the fitted values of δh, εh, ε⊥h, and σh all depend on the chosen membrane thickness δm, which the authors set by an operational criterion (where d²ε∥(z)/dz² = 0). Alternative thickness definitions—atomic-position based (3.9–4.2 nm) or electrostatic-influence based (~5 nm)—could shift the parameters and the predicted response, and this sensitivity is only checke
  • The success of the model suggests that other nonlocal or ill-posed dielectric descriptions in soft matter could be regularized by similar slab-averaging procedures, but the physical meaning of the resulting effective permittivity would then depend on the arbitrary choice of coarse-graining length—an ambiguity worth stating explicitly when applying the method.
  • One could test the model's predictive power beyond the fitted field magnitude by simulating out-of-plane fields above 70 mV/nm and checking whether the linear-slab prediction systematically deviates where the true response becomes nonlinear.
  • The model implies an effective membrane capacitance that is not simply the series capacitance of a single uniform slab; computing that capacitance and comparing to impedance measurements of lipid bilayers would be a direct experimental check.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This Letter proposes a three-slab continuum model for the dielectric permittivity of a phospholipid bilayer. The membrane is represented by two anisotropic head-group slabs carrying intrinsic bound surface charges and one tail slab with vacuum permittivity. Four independent parameters are solved from four MD-derived integral constraints: the dipole potential, the integrated in-plane permittivity, and the zeroth and first moments of the out-of-plane polarization response. The model is claimed to capture the zero-field membrane potential and the membrane response to out-of-plane fields up to 70 mV/nm, despite the ill-posedness of the local out-of-plane permittivity in the head-group region. All-atom MD simulations of DPPC (and DOPC, in the SM) are used for fitting and validation.

Significance. If validated, the model offers a tractable coarse-grained description of membrane electrostatics that can be incorporated into continuum electromechanics theories, and it proposes a physically motivated way to regularize the ill-defined local permittivity by introducing slab-scale averaging. The main strength is the out-of-sample test at 70 mV/nm (Fig. 4), where parameters fitted at 20 mV/nm reproduce the MD profiles of potential change and polarization change. Additional strengths are the availability of code, the use of established statistical-mechanical routes to the permittivity, and the cross-system DOPC checks reported in the SM. The main weakness is that the central predictive claim is contingent on an operational definition of membrane thickness whose robustness is relegated to the SM, and the fitted-versus-predicted status of the zero-field and in-plane comparisons is not clearly delineated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Determining model parameters (Eqs. 8–11) and Table 1] The fitted parameters are solved from equations that contain δ_t = δ_m/2 − δ_h, so all four independent parameters depend on the input membrane thickness δ_m. The paper chooses δ_m ≈ 4.4 nm from the inflection point of ε_∥(z), while standard atomic-position definitions give 3.9–4.2 nm and the electrostatic influence suggests ≈5 nm (Results and discussion). The text states that the SM verifies robustness to this choice, but the SM is not included and no sensitivity data appear in the main text. Since Fig. 4's out-of-sample agreement is obtained with parameters fitted at δ_m = 4.4 nm, the central claim is contingent on this operational definition. Please include the SM or add a main-text sensitivity table showing δ_h, ε_h, ε⊥_h, σ_h and the predicted Δϕ(z), ΔP_z(z) at 70 mV/nm for δ_m = 3.9, 4.4, and 5.0 nm.
  2. [Results and discussion (Figs. 1–3)] Equations (8)–(11) fit the model parameters to the same MD observables displayed in Figs. 1(c), 2(b), and 3(a): the dipole potential (Eq. 8), the integrated in-plane permittivity (Eq. 9), and the zeroth and first moments of ΔP_z (Eqs. 10–11). Those comparisons therefore test only the slab ansatz's ability to reproduce the spatial shape after integral constraints are imposed, not the model's predictive power for these quantities. The only strictly out-of-sample quantitative test in the main text is Fig. 4 at 70 mV/nm. The abstract's statement that the model 'capture[s] both the zero-field electric potential and the membrane response' should be qualified to distinguish fitted moments from predicted profiles.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] Typo: 'membrane thoeries' should be 'membrane theories'.
  2. [Results and discussion] Typo: 'Moreoever' should be 'Moreover'.
  3. [Fig. 1(c)] The inset comparing MD and three-slab ⟨P_z⟩ is very small; enlarge it or move it to a separate panel for readability.
  4. [Three-slab model / Eq. (9)] State how ε_w is determined (e.g., bulk-water MD value) and give its value; it is an input, not one of the four fitted parameters.
  5. [Abstract] Specify which fields are linear up to 30 mV/nm (in-plane) versus 70 mV/nm (out-of-plane) to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Zero-field dipole potential and in-plane permittivity are fitted inputs used as validation; the 70 mV/nm out-of-plane test is genuinely out-of-sample.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Determining model parameters, Eq. (8); Figs. 1(c) and 2(b)]
    "We first consider the membrane at zero external field... [ϕ(0)]0 − [ϕ(ℓ/2)]0 = σ_h δ_h / ε0. (8)... The left-hand side of Eq. (8) is the so-called dipole potential, and is calculated from MD simulations, while the right-hand side is in terms of three-slab parameters. In this way, the three-slab model captures key features of the zero-field membrane, as shown in Figs. 1(c) and 2(b)."

    Equation (8) sets σ_h δ_h/ε0 exactly equal to the MD dipole-potential difference, so the integrated zero-field potential is matched by construction. Presenting Figs. 1(c) and 2(b) as evidence that the model 'captures the zero-field electric potential' is circular for this integrated quantity. Only the spatial profile shape is a nontrivial output, and the paper appropriately hedges it as 'approximately captured.'

  2. fitted input called prediction [Determining model parameters, Eq. (9); Fig. 3(a)]
    "For an in-plane field with magnitude Ê, we equate the integral of the in-plane polarization density—or, equivalently, the in-plane permittivity—in the three-slab and MD scenarios. ... ∫_0^{ℓ/2} ε∥(z) dz = δ_t ε0 + δ_h ε_h + δ_w ε_w. (9). Figure 3(a) compares ε∥ with its three-slab counterpart."

    Equation (9) forces the half-cell integral of the in-plane permittivity to equal the slab-model sum. The Fig. 3(a) comparison of ε∥(z) with the MD profile is therefore in-sample for the integral of ε∥; only the slab-wise shape is a genuine test. The phrase 'captures essential features of the MD result according to Eq. (9)' makes this in-sample nature explicit.

full rationale

The paper's central out-of-plane validation is not circular by construction: the model parameters are solved from Eqs. (8)–(11) using zero-field data, the in-plane permittivity, and the 20 mV/nm out-of-plane response, while Fig. 4 compares against 70 mV/nm MD data. That is an extrapolation in field strength and tests linearity, so it carries independent content. The circularity burden is moderate but real for the zero-field and in-plane 'capture' claims: Eq. (8) fits the dipole-potential difference and Eq. (9) fits the integrated in-plane permittivity, so those comparisons cannot validate the model beyond its assumed slab geometry. The arbitrary membrane-thickness definition (δ_m ≈ 4.4 nm from d²ε∥/dz² = 0) and the unshown SM robustness check are correctness/robustness concerns rather than circularity, since the equations do not reduce to this choice by definition. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears; the statistical-mechanics framework follows the external work of Stern and Feller [19]. Overall, the derivation is not self-referential at its core, but several headline agreements are fitted inputs, giving a score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small set of fitted slab parameters and on the Stern–Feller linear-response formalism. No new physical entities such as particles or forces are introduced; the slabs and bound surface charges are coarse-grained representations. The main burden is that the slab widths and permittivities are effective parameters fitted to the same data they are later said to capture.

free parameters (7)
  • head-group slab thickness δ_h = 1.1 nm (DPPC); 1.1 nm (DOPC)
    Solved from Eqs. (8)–(11); depends on the chosen membrane thickness δ_m.
  • in-plane head-group permittivity ε_h = 160 ε0 (DPPC); 170 ε0 (DOPC)
    Fitted via Eq. (9) to reproduce the MD-integrated in-plane permittivity; may absorb water-layer modeling uncertainty.
  • out-of-plane head-group permittivity ε⊥_h = 16 ε0 (DPPC); 9.2 ε0 (DOPC)
    Fitted via Eqs. (10)–(11) from the zeroth and first moments of ΔP_z under E_z = 20 mV/nm.
  • bound surface charge density σ_h = 0.034 e/nm² (DPPC); 0.029 e/nm² (DOPC)
    Fitted via Eq. (8) to match the MD dipole potential.
  • membrane thickness δ_m = 4.4 nm
    Set by the inflection-point condition d²ε∥/dz² = 0; not a direct measurement, and alternative definitions (3.9–4.2 nm or ~5 nm) would give different parameter sets.
  • tail half-thickness δ_t = 1.1 nm (DPPC); 1.0 nm (DOPC)
    Derived from δ_m and δ_h rather than independently measured.
  • water permittivity ε_w = not stated in main text (presumably bulk water ~80 ε0)
    Used in Eqs. (9)–(11); the in-plane fit is sensitive to this value, but it is not reported or varied in the main text.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The fluctuation–response relation ψ(z) = β(⟨P⊗M⟩0 − ⟨P⟩0⊗⟨M⟩0) and the field relation Eq. (4) give the local permittivity via Eqs. (5)–(7) (Stern–Feller formalism).
    Adopted from Ref. [19]; Eq. (4) is stated to be valid only for conducting boundary conditions (footnote 23), which is not justified for the MD setup in the main text.
  • domain assumption The membrane is fluid-phase, laterally isotropic, and translationally invariant, so the permittivity tensor is diagonal with two independent components.
    Used to reduce the response tensor to ε∥ and ε⊥; standard for DPPC/DOPC fluid bilayers.
  • ad hoc to paper The three-slab ansatz: uniform polarization density and permittivity inside each slab, zero intrinsic polarization in the tail, and equal/opposite bound surface charges at head-group faces.
    This is the model construction itself; it is not derived from microscopic physics and introduces new length scales (slab widths).
  • domain assumption The dipole potential difference is entirely accounted for by σ_h δ_h/ε0 (Eq. 8), assuming no free charge in the system.
    Used to fit σ_h; ignores any residual potential drop across the tail/water regions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Three-slab model for the dielectric permittivity of a lipid bilayer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IUTS5OCE

@misc{pith2026260218852,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Three-slab model for the dielectric permittivity of a lipid bilayer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IUTS5OCE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.18852}
}
read the original abstract

A model for the tensorial dielectric permittivity of phospholipid membranes is presented here. The four-nanometer-thick membrane is treated as a composite made up of three dielectric slabs: one for each of the two phospholipid head-group regions, and one for the entire domain spanned by the lipid tails. Equal and opposite bound surface charge densities surround each head-group slab, and account for the membrane dipole potential. Three-slab model parameters are obtained from molecular dynamics simulations, and capture both the zero-field electric potential and the membrane response to applied electric fields. The tail region is well-approximated as having vacuum permittivity, while the head-group region is highly anisotropic due to the configurations of molecular dipoles. For the bilayers studied, the out-of-plane permittivity of the head-group region is 10--15 times that of the vacuum, while the in-plane permittivity is an order of magnitude larger. Membrane responses to applied electric fields up to 30 millivolts per nanometer are found to be in the linear regime. The model overcomes a fundamental limitation of microscopic theories---where the out-of-plane permittivity lacks a meaningful continuum interpretation in the head-group region due to large gradients in the local electric field---by averaging over slab widths, thereby introducing new length scales. Our approach can be extended to characterize general interfacial systems with similar microscopic permittivities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.18852 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. DPPC phospholipid bilayer under zero applied [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Three-slab model parametrized with results from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Permittivity of a DPPC membrane. (a) The in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Change in electric potential (a) and out-of-plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Albertset al

    B. Albertset al. Molecular Biology of the Cell(W.W. Norton, Inc., New York, 2022), 7th edn

    2022

  2. [2]

    Hille.Ion Channels of Excitable Membranes(Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, 2001), 3rd edn

    B. Hille.Ion Channels of Excitable Membranes(Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, 2001), 3rd edn

    2001

  3. [3]

    Malmivuo & R

    J. Malmivuo & R. Plonsey.Bioelectromagnetism: Prin- ciples and Applications of Bioelectric and Biomagnetic Fields(Oxford University Press, New York, 1995)

    1995

  4. [4]

    Ohki & K

    S. Ohki & K. Arnold. Determination of liposome surface dielectric constant and hydrophobicity. In:Liposomes, Part A, vol. 367 ofMethods Enzymol., 253–272 (Aca- demic Press, 2003)

    2003

  5. [5]

    Merla, M

    C. Merla, M. Liberti, F. Apollonio & G. d’Inzeo.Bio- electromagnetics30, 286–298 (2009)

    2009

  6. [6]

    Gramse, A

    G. Gramse, A. Dols-Perez, M. Edwards, L. Fumagalli & G. Gomila.Biophys. J.104, 1257–1262 (2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    Huang & D

    W. Huang & D. G. Levitt.Biophys. J.17, 111–128 (1977)

    1977

  8. [8]

    Nymeyer & H.-X

    H. Nymeyer & H.-X. Zhou.Biophys. J.94, 1185–1193 (2008)

    2008

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Edmiston & D

    J. Edmiston & D. J. Steigmann. Analysis of non- linear electrostatic membranes. In: R. W. Ogden & D. J. Steigmann (eds.)Mechanics and Electrodynam- ics of Magneto- and Electro-Elastic Materials, 153–180 (Springer, New York, 2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    D. J. Steigmann & A. Agrawal.Math. Mech. Complex Syst.4, 31–54 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Y. A. D. Omar, Z. G. Lipel & K. K. Mandadapu.Phys. Rev. E109, 054401 (2024). arXiv:2301.09610

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Y. A. D. Omar, Z. G. Lipel & K. K. Mandadapu.Phys. Rev. E112, 024406 (2025). arXiv:2309.03863

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Y. A. D. Omar, Z. G. Lipel & K. K. Mandadapu.Phys. Rev. E112, 024407 (2025). arXiv:2501.11612

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Z. Yu, S. Zhao, M. J. Miksis & P. M. Vlahovska.Phys. Rev. E112, 054408 (2025). arXiv:2502.12551

    2025

  7. [15]

    H. Row, J. B. Fernandes, K. K. Mandadapu & K. Shekhar.Phys. Rev. Res.7, 013185 (2025). arXiv:2407. 11947

    2025

  8. [16]

    Farhadi, J

    J. Farhadi, J. B. Fernandes, K. Shekhar & K. K. Man- dadapu.Phys. Rev. E111, 064412 (2025). arXiv:2503. 04677

    2025

  9. [17]

    J. B. Fernandes, H. Row, K. K. Mandadapu & K. Shekhar.Phys. Rev. Res.8, 013137 (2026). arXiv:2508. 14001

    2026

  10. [18]

    M. C. Wiener & S. H. White.Biophys. J.61, 434–447 (1992)

    1992

  11. [19]

    H. A. Stern & S. E. Feller.J. Chem. Phys118, 3401– 3412 (2003)

    2003

  12. [20]

    Raudino & D

    A. Raudino & D. Mauzerall.Biophys. J.50, 441–449 (1986)

    1986

  13. [21]

    The SM ad- ditionally cites Refs

    See the Supplemental Material (SM), where relevant equations are derived, simulation protocols are pro- vided, and further results are presented. The SM ad- ditionally cites Refs. [36–42]

  14. [22]

    D. T. Limmer.Statistical Mechanics and Stochastic Thermodynamics: A Textbook on Modern Approaches in and out of Equilibrium(Oxford University Press, 2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    (4) is correct only for conducting boundary conditions; the more general case is treated in Ref

    In MD simulations, Eq. (4) is correct only for conducting boundary conditions; the more general case is treated in Ref. [19]

  16. [24]

    Nienhuis & J

    G. Nienhuis & J. M. Deutch.J. Chem. Phys.55, 4213– 4229 (1971)

    1971

  17. [25]

    Ballenegger & J.-P

    V. Ballenegger & J.-P. Hansen.J. Chem. Phys.122, 114711 (2005)

    2005

  18. [26]

    D. J. Bonthuis, S. Gekle & R. R. Netz.Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 166102 (2011)

    2011

  19. [27]

    D. J. Bonthuis, S. Gekle & R. R. Netz.Langmuir28, 7679–7694 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    Egberts, S

    E. Egberts, S. J. Marrink & H. J. C. Berendsen.Eur. Biophys. J.22, 423–436 (1994)

    1994

  21. [29]

    A. G. Petrov.Anal. Chim. Acta568, 70–83 (2006)

    2006

  22. [30]

    Harland, W

    B. Harland, W. E. Brownell, A. A. Spector & S. X. Sun. Phys. Rev. E81, 031907 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Thomas & A

    N. Thomas & A. Agrawal.Europhys. Lett.134, 68003 (2021). 6M.M.B. Sheraj and A. Sahu

    2021

  24. [32]

    Torbati, K

    M. Torbati, K. Mozaffari, L. Liu & P. Sharma.Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 025003 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Dimovaet al

    R. Dimovaet al. Soft Matter3, 817–827 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    Dimovaet al

    R. Dimovaet al. Soft Matter5, 3201–3212 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Thomas & A

    N. Thomas & A. Agrawal.Soft Matter18, 6437–6442 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    J. G. Kirkwood.J. Chem. Phys.7, 911–919 (1939)

    1939

  29. [37]

    Neumann.Mol

    M. Neumann.Mol. Phys.50, 841–858 (1983)

    1983

  30. [38]

    J. B. Klaudaet al. J. Phys. Chem. B114, 7830–7843 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    Abrahamet al.GROMACS 2024.2 Manual (2024)

    M. Abrahamet al.GROMACS 2024.2 Manual (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    W. L. Jorgensen, J. Chandrasekhar, J. D. Madura, R. W. Impey & M. L. Klein.J. Chem. Phys79, 926–935 (1983)

    1983

  33. [41]

    Berendsen, D

    H. Berendsen, D. van der Spoel & R. van Drunen.Comp. Phys. Commun.91, 43–56 (1995)

    1995

  34. [42]

    S. Feng, S. Park, Y. K. Choi & W. Im.J. Chem. Theory Comput.19, 2161–2185 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.