pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00205 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 🪐 quant-ph

Quantum in Biology, Quantum for Biology, and Biology for Quantum: Mapping the Evidence and the Road Ahead

Lea Gassab , Betony Adams , Yashine H. Goolam Hossen , Onur Pusuluk , Iannis K. Kominis , \"Ozg\"ur E. M\"ustecapl{\i}o\u{g}lu , Francesco Petruccione , Travis J. A. Craddock This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 20:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum biologyradical-pair mechanismenzymatic tunnelingmagnetoreceptionquantum tools for biologybiomolecular quantum devicesevidence mapping
0
0 comments X

The pith

The review maps evidence for quantum effects in biology and finds only enzymatic tunneling and radical-pair magnetoreception as mature cases.

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

This paper provides a structured narrative evidence map of the intersections between quantum science and biology across three directions: quantum in biology, quantum for biology, and biology for quantum. For each topic it examines the mechanistic claim, the quantum resource involved, the strongest supporting experiments and models, the competitive classical alternatives, and the decisive tests that would shift confidence. The authors identify mechanistically constrained tunneling in some enzymatic hydrogen-transfer reactions and radical-pair spin chemistry for magnetoreception as the most mature quantum-in-biology cases, while noting that many other topics remain suggestive but unconfirmed under physiological conditions. In the other directions, the key issues are whether quantum tools outperform classical baselines in biology and whether biology aids quantum device fabrication. This approach matters because it offers a systematic way to evaluate claims in a field prone to both promise and overinterpretation.

Core claim

The paper establishes that a structured narrative evidence map of quantum-biology intersections reveals two mature cases in quantum-in-biology—mechanistically constrained tunneling in enzymatic hydrogen-transfer reactions and radical-pair spin chemistry as a viable framework for magnetoreception—while higher-visibility topics stay suggestive but unresolved under physiological conditions. For quantum-for-biology the central question is improvement over classical baselines under realistic constraints, and for biology-for-quantum the strongest claims come from measurable improvements in quantum device fabrication or robustness via biomolecular structure or self-assembly.

What carries the argument

The structured narrative evidence map, which for each topic specifies the mechanistic or technological claim, the invoked quantum resource, strongest experiments and models, competitive classical alternatives or confounds, and decisive tests or benchmarks.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the chosen topics, experiments, and classical alternatives fairly represent the current literature without systematic selection bias or omission of contradictory results.

What would settle it

A decisive experiment demonstrating long-lived quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems under physiological conditions with no viable classical alternative would challenge the assessment that such topics remain unresolved.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00205 by Betony Adams, Francesco Petruccione, Iannis K. Kominis, Lea Gassab, Onur Pusuluk, \"Ozg\"ur E. M\"ustecapl{\i}o\u{g}lu, Travis J. A. Craddock, Yashine H. Goolam Hossen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Conceptual framework used throughout the review. Each topic is mapped across three directions: quantum in biology, quantum for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Overview of selected key topic areas in quantum in biology. The panels schematically represent DNA replication and proton transfer, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Overview of representative directions in quantum for biology. The panels illustrate quantum simulation of molecular and spin-dynamical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Overview of representative directions in biology for quantum. The panels schematically show DNA origami scaffolds, virus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum science and biology now intersect in three complementary directions: quantum in biology, quantum for biology, and biology for quantum. This review provides a structured narrative evidence map of that interface rather than an exhaustive catalogue or formal systematic review. For each topic, we ask what the mechanistic or technological claim is, which quantum resource is invoked, what the strongest experiments and models establish, which classical alternatives or engineering confounds remain competitive, and what decisive tests or benchmarks would most strongly change confidence. The most mature quantum-in-biology cases remain mechanistically constrained tunneling in some enzymatic hydrogen-transfer reactions and radical-pair spin chemistry as a viable framework for magnetoreception, whereas several higher-visibility topics remain suggestive but unresolved under physiological conditions. In quantum for biology, the central issue is whether quantum-enabled tools improve biological inference relative to strong classical baselines under realistic calibration, dose, throughput, and uncertainty constraints. In biology for quantum, the strongest claims arise when biomolecular structure or self-assembly measurably improves fabrication, integration, or robustness in quantum devices. Summary tables in the Appendix provide a compact cross-map view of the current evidence, major confounds, and the experiments or benchmarks most likely to discriminate between competing explanations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript offers a structured narrative evidence map of the intersections between quantum science and biology in three directions: quantum in biology, quantum for biology, and biology for quantum. For each topic it examines the mechanistic or technological claim, the quantum resource invoked, the strongest experiments and models, competitive classical alternatives, and decisive tests or benchmarks. The central conclusion is that mechanistically constrained tunneling in some enzymatic hydrogen-transfer reactions and radical-pair spin chemistry as a framework for magnetoreception remain the most mature quantum-in-biology cases, while several higher-visibility topics are suggestive but unresolved under physiological conditions. Summary tables in the Appendix provide a compact cross-map of evidence, confounds, and discriminating experiments.

Significance. If the mapping is accurate, the review supplies a useful evidence-based framework that can help researchers prioritize experiments, distinguish robust quantum effects from classical alternatives, and identify the benchmarks most likely to resolve remaining ambiguities. By systematically addressing per-topic quantum resources, experimental support, and competitive explanations, it reduces the risk of overinterpretation in an interdisciplinary field and offers a compact reference for both experimentalists and theorists.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Appendix] The appendix tables would be clearer if the column headers explicitly distinguished 'quantum resource invoked' from 'strongest experimental support' and 'competitive classical alternatives' (currently the mapping is inferable but not labeled).
  2. A short glossary or footnote defining the maturity descriptors ('mechanistically constrained,' 'viable framework,' 'suggestive but unresolved') would aid readers who are not already familiar with the cited literature.
  3. [Quantum for Biology] A few sentences in the quantum-for-biology section are long and contain multiple clauses; splitting them would improve readability without changing content.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and positive assessment of the manuscript. Their summary accurately reflects the scope, structure, and central conclusions of the review. We are pleased that the evidence-mapping approach and the identification of mature versus unresolved cases were found useful. As the referee raises no major comments or requests for clarification, we have no revisions to propose.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in this evidence-mapping review

full rationale

This is a narrative review paper that structures and summarizes external literature on quantum-biology topics without any internal derivations, equations, predictions, or fitted parameters. It explicitly positions itself as a non-exhaustive evidence map, asking per-topic questions about mechanistic claims, quantum resources, experiments, classical alternatives, and decisive tests, then tabulating external findings. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a self-definition, a fitted input renamed as prediction, or a self-citation chain; all maturity classifications and conclusions rest on cited external results rather than quantities defined inside the paper. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The report rests on the assumption that the cited literature accurately represents the field and that the three-direction framework captures the main intersections without introducing new physical postulates.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard criteria for evaluating mechanistic claims and experimental support in interdisciplinary science
    The review applies established scientific standards for assessing which quantum resources are required and which classical alternatives remain viable.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5569 in / 1285 out tokens · 27304 ms · 2026-05-09T20:11:22.818075+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

258 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Genetic code and quantum formalisms Quantum-inspired approaches to the genetic code should be separated into two different types of claim. The first is mathematical: algebraic, spectral, or quantum-information- inspired formalisms can provide compact ways to describe symmetries,degeneracies,anderror-tolerancepatternsincodon assignments [128, 129]. In this...

  2. [2]

    advantage

    Posner cluster hypothesis The Posner cluster hypothesis proposes that calcium phos- phateclusterscouldprotect 31Pnuclearspins, therebyenabling unusually long-lived coherence or entanglement that might coupletobiochemicalsignaling[ 136]. Structuralandcomputa- tional work has explored plausible geometries and vibrational fingerprints for such clusters [137]...

  3. [3]

    Currentworkspansalgorithm development, proof-of-principle demonstrations, and hybrid 10 FIG

    Quantum simulation of biomolecular systems Quantum simulation is motivated by the possibility of repre- senting electronic structure and quantum dynamics more natu- rally than classical approximations in some regimes, including multireference electronic states that require the simultaneous treatment of several important orbitals (active spaces), as well a...

  4. [4]

    Quantum computing in molecular design and drug discovery Quantum computing is being explored for molecular de- sign, docking, binding estimation, and optimization problems in drug discovery, most often within hybrid workflows that combine classical data-driven models with quantum subrou- tines for chemistry or search steps [160–164]. At present, however, ...

  5. [5]

    Quantum machine learning and bioinformatics Quantum machine learning and quantum bioinformatics aim toaddresshigh-dimensionalbiologicaldataanalysis, similarity search, and optimization tasks using quantum or quantum- inspired representations and algorithms [169–174]. A central challenge is that many reported gains are difficult to separate from artifacts ...

  6. [6]

    The sensing physics is well established, and biological deployments using nanodiamonds,surfacefunctionalization,andscanningorwide- field modalities are expanding rapidly

    Diamond quantum sensing in biology Nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond enable detection of magneticfieldsandtemperatureatmicro-andnanoscaleresolu- tion under ambient conditions [15, 16, 178–182]. The sensing physics is well established, and biological deployments using nanodiamonds,surfacefunctionalization,andscanningorwide- field modalities are expanding...

  7. [7]

    Two quantum-technologyroutesaimtoenhancesensitivityandscale

    Quantum-enhanced NMR and MRI NMR and MRI are limited by thermal polarization. Two quantum-technologyroutesaimtoenhancesensitivityandscale. Diamond quantum sensors enable nano- and microscale NMR detection in regimes inaccessible to conventional coils [190– 192]. A recent step toward scalable microscopy-style readout is optical wide-field NMR microscopy, i...

  8. [8]

    Quantum-enhanced bioimaging and spectroscopy Quantum-light resources, including squeezing and nonclas- sical photon correlations, enable imaging below shot noise and modalities such as imaging with undetected photons [197, 198]. Biological demonstrations include squeezed il- lumination, correlation-based concepts for super-resolution and precision enhance...

  9. [9]

    The main biological contribution here is addressable and modular self-assembly, which can be used to position interacting components with high spatial control [19, 20, 216, 217]

    DNA origami scaffolds for quantum nanophotonics DNA origami enables programmable self-assembly and nanometer-scale placement of functional components, in- cluding quantum emitters and plasmonic structures, and has emerged as a useful platform for organizing nanoscale pho- tonic architectures [19, 20, 216, 217]. The main biological contribution here is add...

  10. [10]

    Biotemplated bottom-up fabrication Biologicaltemplatessuchasviruses,proteinassemblies,and DNA scaffolds offer bottom-up routes to organizing inorganic nanowires, conductive pathways, and hybrid nanostructures with nanoscale addressability [218, 219]. In the context of quantum technology, the key question is not simply whether such structures can be assemb...

  11. [11]

    Noise-robust transport and interference inspired by photosynthesis Photosyntheticlightharvestingmotivatesengineereddesigns in which environmental noise and interference may be used constructively in transport networks [21, 83, 225, 226]. The biologicalcontributionliesinshowingthatfunctionalefficiency can coexist with disorder and strong environmental coup...

  12. [12]

    mental entanglement

    Brain-inspired quantum and quantum-inspired neural computation Brain-inspired computing seeks to draw on principles of biological neural systems in both algorithms and hardware, including event-driven dynamics, temporal coding, and energy- efficient information processing [227]. Models span a range of abstraction, from biophysically detailed descriptions ...

    2022

  13. [13]

    Lambertet al., Nature Physics9, 10 (2013)

    N. Lambertet al., Nature Physics9, 10 (2013)

    2013

  14. [14]

    Maraiset al., Journal of the Royal Society Interface15, 20180640 (2018)

    A. Maraiset al., Journal of the Royal Society Interface15, 20180640 (2018)

    2018

  15. [15]

    Ball, Nature474, 272 (2011)

    P. Ball, Nature474, 272 (2011)

    2011

  16. [16]

    Schrödinger,What is Life?(Cambridge University Press, 1944)

    E. Schrödinger,What is Life?(Cambridge University Press, 1944)

    1944

  17. [17]

    Löwdin, Reviews of Modern Physics35, 724 (1963)

    P.-O. Löwdin, Reviews of Modern Physics35, 724 (1963)

    1963

  18. [18]

    J. P. Klinman and A. Kohen, Annual Review of Biochemistry 82, 471 (2013)

    2013

  19. [19]

    G. S. Engel, T. R. Calhoun, E. L. Read, T.-K. Ahn, T. Mančal, Y.-C. Cheng, R. E. Blankenship, and G. R. Fleming, Nature 446, 782 (2007)

    2007

  20. [20]

    Panitchayangkoon, D

    G. Panitchayangkoon, D. Hayes, K. A. Fransted, J. R. Caram, E. Harel, J. Wen, R. E. Blankenship, and G. S. Engel, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences107, 12766 (2010)

    2010

  21. [21]

    Collini, C

    E. Collini, C. Y. Wong, K. E. Wilk, P. M. G. Curmi, P. Brumer, and G. D. Scholes, Nature463, 644 (2010)

    2010

  22. [22]

    J. E. Runeson, J. E. Lawrence, J. R. Mannouch, and J. O. Richardson, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters13, 3392 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    T. Ritz, S. Adem, and K. Schulten, Biophysical Journal78, 707 (2000)

    2000

  24. [24]

    J. Cai, G. G. Guerreschi, and H. J. Briegel, Physical Review Letters104, 220502 (2010)

    2010

  25. [25]

    P. J. Hore and H. Mouritsen, Current Opinion in Neurobiology 41, 38 (2016)

    2016

  26. [26]

    Cai and M

    J. Cai and M. B. Plenio, Physical review letters111, 230503 (2013)

    2013

  27. [27]

    Schirhagl, K

    R. Schirhagl, K. Chang, M. Loretz, and C. L. Degen, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry65, 83 (2014)

    2014

  28. [28]

    C.L.Degen,F.Reinhard,andP.Cappellaro,ReviewsofModern Physics89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  29. [29]

    Moreau, E

    P.-A. Moreau, E. Toninelli, T. Gregory, and M. J. Padgett, Nature Reviews Physics1, 367 (2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    Caoet al., Science Advances6, eaaz4888 (2020)

    J. Caoet al., Science Advances6, eaaz4888 (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    Kriegel, C

    I. Kriegel, C. Diederichs, and P. Tinnefeld, Nature Reviews Materials5, 886 (2020)

    2020

  32. [32]

    Kuzyk, R

    A. Kuzyk, R. Jungmann, G. P. Acuna, and N. Liu, ACS Photon- ics5, 1151 (2018)

    2018

  33. [33]

    C.Creatore,M.A.Parker,S.Emmott,andA.W.Chin,Physical Review Letters111, 253601 (2013)

    2013

  34. [34]

    Kifle, Y

    J.S.Feder,B.S.Soloway,S.Verma,Z.Z.Geng,S.Wang,B.B. Kifle, Y. Tsaturyan, L. R. Weiss, M. Xie, J. Huang, A. Esser- Kahn,L.Gagliardi,D.D.Awschalom,andP.C.Maurer,Nature 645, 73 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    Pusuluk, G

    O. Pusuluk, G. Torun, and C. Deliduman, Modern Physics Letters B32, 1850308 (2018)

    2018

  36. [36]

    thesis, University of Surrey (2022)

    L.Slocombe,QuantumeffectsinDNAreplicationfidelity,Ph.D. thesis, University of Surrey (2022)

    2022

  37. [37]

    Weinhold and R

    F. Weinhold and R. A. Klein, Chemistry Education Research and Practice15, 276 (2014)

    2014

  38. [38]

    Fonseca Guerra, F

    C. Fonseca Guerra, F. M. Bickelhaupt, J. G. Snijders, and E. J. Baerends, Chemistry - A European Journal5, 3581–3594 (1999)

    1999

  39. [39]

    O.Pusuluk,T.Farrow,C.Deliduman,K.Burnett,andV.Vedral, Proceedings of the Royal Society A474, 20180037 (2018)

    2018

  40. [40]

    Pusuluk, T

    O. Pusuluk, T. Farrow, C. Deliduman, and V. Vedral, Proceed- ings of the Royal Society A475, 20180867 (2019)

    2019

  41. [41]

    B.D.Freudenthal,W.A.Beard,D.D.Shock,andS.H.Wilson, Cell154, 157 (2013)

    2013

  42. [42]

    J. A. Jamsen, D. D. Shock, and S. H. Wilson, Nature Commu- nications13, 3193 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    W. Wang, H. W. Hellinga, and L. S. Beese, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108, 17644 (2011)

    2011

  44. [44]

    I. J. Kimsey, K. Petzold, B. Sathyamoorthy, Z. W. Stein, and H. M. Al-Hashimi, Nature519, 315 (2015)

    2015

  45. [45]

    Jevtic and J

    S. Jevtic and J. Anders, The Journal of Chemical Physics147, 114108 (2017)

    2017

  46. [46]

    Korchagina, S

    K. Korchagina, S. G. Balasubramani, J. Berreur, E. F. Gerard, L. O. Johannissen, A. P. Green, S. Hay, and S. D. Schwartz, TheJournalofPhysicalChemistryB10.1021/acs.jpcb.4c08169 (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    J.M.Mayer,AnnualReviewofPhysicalChemistry10.1146/an- nurev.physchem.55.091602.094446 (2004)

    work page arXiv 2004

  48. [48]

    Hammes-Schiffer and A

    S. Hammes-Schiffer and A. A. Stuchebrukhov, Chemical Re- views 10.1021/cr1001436 (2010)

    work page doi:10.1021/cr1001436 2010

  49. [49]

    S.Hammes-Schiffer,JournaloftheAmericanChemicalSociety 137, 8860 (2015)

    2015

  50. [50]

    Hecht, S

    S. Hecht, S. Shlaer, and M. H. Pirenne, Journal of General Physiology25, 819 (1942)

    1942

  51. [51]

    F.RiekeandD.A.Baylor,ReviewsofModernPhysics70,1027 (1998)

    1998

  52. [52]

    P.I.Sia,A.N.Luiten,T.M.Stace,J.P.Wood,andR.J.Casson, Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology42, 582 (2014)

    2014

  53. [53]

    Fain, and D

    J.Reingruber,J.Pahlberg,M.L.Woodruff,A.P.Sampath,G.L. Fain, and D. Holcman, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110, 19378 (2013)

    2013

  54. [54]

    K. T. Moazed, Quantum retina, inQuantum Biology of the Eye : Understanding the Essentials(Springer International Publishing, 2023) pp. 67–86

    2023

  55. [55]

    R.HubbardandA.Kropf,ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademy of Sciences44, 130 (1958)

    1958

  56. [56]

    Kropf and R

    A. Kropf and R. Hubbard, Photochemistry and Photobiology 12, 249 (1970)

    1970

  57. [57]

    M. M. Huntress, S. Gozem, K. R. Malley, A. E. Jailaubekov, C. Vasileiou, M. Vengris, J. H. Geiger, B. Borhan, I. Schapiro, D. S. Larsen,et al., The Journal of Physical Chemistry B117, 10053 (2013)

    2013

  58. [58]

    E.Marsili,M.Olivucci,D.Lauvergnat,andF.Agostini,Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation16, 6032 (2020)

    2020

  59. [59]

    T. V. Tscherbul and P. Brumer, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics17, 30904 (2015)

    2015

  60. [60]

    Ben-Nun, F

    M. Ben-Nun, F. Molnar, H. Lu, J. C. Phillips, T. J. Martínez, and K. Schulten, Faraday Discussions110, 447 (1998)

    1998

  61. [61]

    S. Sen, R. K. Kar, V. A. Borin, and I. Schapiro, Wiley Inter- disciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science12, e1562 (2022)

    2022

  62. [62]

    Talotta, D

    F. Talotta, D. Lauvergnat, and F. Agostini, The Journal of Chemical Physics156, 10.1063/5.0089415 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0089415 2022

  63. [63]

    Pereira, J

    A. Pereira, J. Knapik, A. Chen, D. Lauvergnat, and F. Agostini, TheEuropeanPhysicalJournalSpecialTopics232,1917(2023)

    1917

  64. [64]

    Yunger Halpern and D

    N. Yunger Halpern and D. T. Limmer, Physical Review A101, 042116 (2020)

    2020

  65. [65]

    Spaventa, S

    G. Spaventa, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Physical Review A105, 012420 (2022)

    2022

  66. [66]

    Burkhard, O

    M. Burkhard, O. Pusuluk, and T. Farrow, Physical Review A 110, 012411 (2024)

    2024

  67. [67]

    S.Tiwary,G.Spaventa,S.F.Huelga,andM.B.Plenio,Physical Review A112, 032440 (2025). 21

    2025

  68. [68]

    J. N. Tinsley, M. I. Molodtsov, R. Prevedel, D. Wartmann, J. Espigule-Pons, M. Lauwers, and A. Vaziri, Nature Commu- nications7, 12172 (2016)

    2016

  69. [69]

    Holmes, M

    R. Holmes, M. Victora, R. F. Wang, and P. G. Kwiat, Vision Research140, 33 (2017)

    2017

  70. [70]

    Loulakis, G

    M. Loulakis, G. Blatsios, C. S. Vrettou, and I. K. Kominis, Physical Review Applied8, 044012 (2017)

    2017

  71. [71]

    Margaritakis, G

    A. Margaritakis, G. Anyfantaki, K. Mouloudakis, A. Gratsea, and I. K. Kominis, Applied Physics B126, 99 (2020)

    2020

  72. [72]

    Morales, J

    A. Morales, J. Fierrez, J. Galbally, and M. Gomez-Barrero, inHandbook of Biometric Anti-Spoofing, edited by S. Marcel, M. Nixon, J. Fierrez, and N. Evans (Springer, Cham, 2019) pp. 135–150

    2019

  73. [73]

    1169–1177

    D.J.LieblingandS.Preibusch,inProceedingsofthe2014ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct Publication(ACM, 2014) pp. 1169–1177

    2014

  74. [74]

    A. Liu, L. Xia, A. T. Duchowski, R. Bailey, K. Holmqvist, and E. Jain, inProceedings of the 11th ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications(ACM, 2019)

    2019

  75. [75]

    E. R. Bittner, A. Madalan, A. Czader, and G. Roman, The Journal of chemical physics137, 10.1063/1.4767067 (2012)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4767067 2012

  76. [76]

    I. A. Solov’yov, P.-Y. Chang, and K. Schulten, Physical Chem- istry Chemical Physics14, 13861 (2012)

    2012

  77. [77]

    Tirandaz, F

    A. Tirandaz, F. Taher Ghahramani, and V. Salari, Scientific Reports7, 4432 (2017)

    2017

  78. [78]

    Chęcińska, F

    A. Chęcińska, F. A. Pollock, L. Heaney, and A. Nazir, The Journal of Chemical Physics142, 025102 (2015)

    2015

  79. [79]

    Ertem, S

    E.Block,S.Jang,H.Matsunami,S.Sekharan,B.Dethier,M.Z. Ertem, S. Gundala, Y. Pan, S. Li, Z. Li,et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112, E2766 (2015)

    2015

  80. [80]

    R. D. Hoehn, D. E. Nichols, H. Neven, and S. Kais, Frontiers in Physics6, 25 (2018)

    2018

Showing first 80 references.