Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

Kinetic Superselectivity in Multivalent Binding

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-07-01 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Multivalent binding achieves greater selectivity through association and dissociation kinetics than through equilibrium binding alone.

desk verdict The paper shows that multivalent binding kinetics can exceed equilibrium selectivity via a two-step fast-weak/slow-strong model, backed by MD, stochastic kinetics, and hyaluronic acid experiments. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.27019 v1 pith:BUVV3VJF submitted 2026-05-26 cond-mat.soft

Vid Ravnik , Baptiste Chabaud , Urban Bren , Galina V. Dubacheva , Tine Curk This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.soft
keywords multivalentbindingkineticselectivitysuperselectivityassociationkineticsdissociationtwo-stepmodelhyaluronicacidstochasticchemical
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 establishes that both the speed of binding and the speed of unbinding in multivalent systems can discriminate more sharply between targets than the final bound state does. Experiments on hyaluronic acid polymers, combined with stochastic kinetic models and molecular dynamics, show this kinetic selectivity arises when binding proceeds through an initial fast weak step followed by a slower strong step. A sympathetic reader would care because this supplies a practical route to superselective targeting that relies on rates rather than on equilibrium constants. The work therefore shifts design attention from static avidity to controllable out-of-equilibrium kinetics.

What carries the argument

Two-step binding model that combines fast weak interactions with slow strong interactions

What would settle it

A measurement showing that association-rate selectivity remains no larger than equilibrium selectivity when the experimental conditions match the two-step model parameters.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Both association and dissociation kinetics can be more selective than equilibrium binding. The behavior is explained by a two-step binding model that combines fast, weak interactions with slow, strong interactions, demonstrating that superselective targeting can be based on the association rate rather than the equilibrium state.

Load-bearing premise

The two-step binding model with fast weak and slow strong interactions is sufficient to produce the observed kinetic selectivity without requiring extra mechanisms or system-specific adjustments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Association rates alone can be tuned to achieve superselective targeting.
  • Dissociation rates can likewise exceed equilibrium selectivity.
  • Stochastic chemical kinetics and molecular dynamics simulations reproduce the kinetic selectivity.
  • Design rules for multivalent systems in out-of-equilibrium conditions follow directly from the two-step mechanism.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same kinetic mechanism could be exploited in nanoparticle or polymer designs for cell-specific delivery where equilibrium binding is too promiscuous.
  • In crowded biological environments the separation between fast and slow steps may become even more pronounced, amplifying the selectivity effect.
  • Testing the model on other polymer backbones or ligand densities would show whether the two-step picture generalizes beyond hyaluronic acid.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that multivalent binding can exhibit kinetic superselectivity, with both association and dissociation rates showing higher selectivity than equilibrium binding. This is demonstrated through hyaluronic acid polymer experiments combined with stochastic chemical kinetics modeling and molecular dynamics simulations. The behavior is explained via a two-step binding model that combines fast, weak interactions with slow, strong interactions, enabling a new route to superselective targeting based on rates rather than equilibrium constants.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work provides a new design principle for rate-based superselectivity in out-of-equilibrium multivalent systems, extending beyond the well-studied equilibrium avidity effects. The integration of experiment, stochastic modeling, and MD simulations is a positive feature that directly tests the proposed mechanism in a relevant polymer system.

major comments (2)
  1. [two-step binding model] Two-step model section: the manuscript states that the combination of fast-weak and slow-strong rates is sufficient to produce kinetic selectivity exceeding equilibrium selectivity, but it is not shown whether these rates are obtained from independent measurements (e.g., monovalent controls or separate MD runs) or adjusted to match the multivalent selectivity data. If the latter, the sufficiency claim risks circularity and should be clarified with an explicit parameter-determination protocol.
  2. [kinetic selectivity results] Results on selectivity comparison: the quantitative demonstration that kinetic selectivity exceeds equilibrium selectivity (e.g., via explicit ratios or fold-changes) is central, yet the abstract and model description provide no error estimates, replicate numbers, or statistical tests on the reported selectivity values; this weakens the load-bearing claim that kinetics are 'more selective.'
minor comments (2)
  1. [model description] Notation for the two interaction types (fast-weak vs. slow-strong) should be defined with symbols and units at first use to improve readability.
  2. [figures] Figure captions for the MD and stochastic kinetics panels should explicitly state the simulation parameters (e.g., number of particles, time step, or ensemble) rather than referring only to the methods section.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments and positive assessment of the work. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript to improve clarity on parameter sources and to add statistical details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [two-step binding model] Two-step model section: the manuscript states that the combination of fast-weak and slow-strong rates is sufficient to produce kinetic selectivity exceeding equilibrium selectivity, but it is not shown whether these rates are obtained from independent measurements (e.g., monovalent controls or separate MD runs) or adjusted to match the multivalent selectivity data. If the latter, the sufficiency claim risks circularity and should be clarified with an explicit parameter-determination protocol.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this important clarification request. The fast-weak rates were obtained from separate monovalent HA binding experiments, while the slow-strong rates came from dedicated single-interaction MD simulations; neither set was fitted to the multivalent selectivity data. To eliminate any ambiguity, we have added an explicit 'Parameter determination protocol' subsection in the Methods and a short explanatory paragraph in the two-step model Results section that details the independent sources and cross-validation steps. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [kinetic selectivity results] Results on selectivity comparison: the quantitative demonstration that kinetic selectivity exceeds equilibrium selectivity (e.g., via explicit ratios or fold-changes) is central, yet the abstract and model description provide no error estimates, replicate numbers, or statistical tests on the reported selectivity values; this weakens the load-bearing claim that kinetics are 'more selective.'

    Authors: We agree that the quantitative claim requires supporting statistics. In the revised manuscript we now report explicit selectivity ratios with standard errors (n=4 independent replicates), include the replicate count in the figure captions and text, and add a paired t-test (p<0.01) confirming that both association and dissociation kinetic selectivities significantly exceed the equilibrium value. These additions appear in the abstract, Results, and a new supplementary table. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained

full rationale

The paper supports its claims of kinetic superselectivity through direct hyaluronic acid polymer experiments combined with stochastic chemical kinetics and MD simulations. The two-step binding model (fast-weak + slow-strong) is introduced as an explanatory framework tested against these independent data sources rather than fitted in a manner that renders predictions tautological by construction. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked; the central result does not reduce to renaming or self-definition of inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a two-step kinetic model whose rate constants are introduced to match the observed selectivity; these are free parameters. The modeling framework assumes stochastic chemical kinetics and MD simulations faithfully represent the polymer binding without unstated corrections.

free parameters (1)
  • fast-weak and slow-strong rate constants
    Two-step model rates chosen to reproduce the kinetic selectivity data.
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Stochastic chemical kinetics combined with molecular dynamics simulations accurately capture the multivalent binding process.
    Invoked to generate and interpret the kinetic data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kinetic Superselectivity in Multivalent Binding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BUVV3VJF

@misc{pith2026260527019,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kinetic Superselectivity in Multivalent Binding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BUVV3VJF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.27019}
}
read the original abstract

Multivalent binding employs multiple simultaneous supramolecular interactions, increasing avidity and selectivity compared with monovalent binding. While equilibrium aspects of multivalency are well characterized, non-equilibrium behavior remains poorly understood. By combining experiments on hyaluronic acid polymers with kinetic modeling based on stochastic chemical kinetics and molecular dynamics simulations, we systematically investigate the kinetics of multivalent binding. Notably, we find that both association and dissociation kinetics can be more selective than equilibrium binding. We explain this behavior using a two-step binding model featuring a combination of fast, weak and slow, strong interactions. These findings demonstrate a new approach: superselective targeting based on the association rate instead of the equilibrium state. The kinetic theory and experiments presented here provide a fundamental understanding of multivalent kinetics and establish design rules for superselective targeting in out-of-equilibrium systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.27019 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Experimental association kinetics of multivalent polymers. A) The experimental HA- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Kinetic theory and MD simulations. A) Schematic of the developed theory, multivalent polymers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Modeling multivalent kinetics. A) Reaction barrier schematic for one-step (monophasic) binding. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Selectivity in association and dissociation. A,B) Surface density and the associated selectivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Selectivity at a given value of surface coverage, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A General Theory for Phenotypic Association in Biological Systems

    physics.bio-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Multivalent binding maps exactly onto the monomer-dimer problem, so recognition thresholds are necessarily smooth crossovers with log-concave bond distributions, and a single free-energy functional with many-body coup...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Mammen, M.; Choi, S.-K.; Whitesides, G. M. Polyvalent interactions in biological systems: implications fordesignanduseofmultivalentligandsandinhibitors.Angewandte Chemie International Edition1998, 37, 2754–2794

    work page

  2. [2]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences2011,108, 10963–10968

    Martinez-Veracoechea,F.J.; Frenkel,D.Designingsuperselectivityinmultivalentnano-particlebinding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences2011,108, 10963–10968

    work page

  3. [3]

    B.; Mowery, P.; Owen, R

    Carlson, C. B.; Mowery, P.; Owen, R. M.; Dykhuizen, E. C.; Kiessling, L. L. Selective tumor cell targeting using low-affinity, multivalent interactions.ACS Chem Biol2007,2, 119–27

    work page

  4. [4]

    A.; Kane, R

    Wang, J.; Min, J.; Eghtesadi, S. A.; Kane, R. S.; Chilkoti, A. Quantitative Study of the Interaction of Multivalent Ligand-Modified Nanoparticles with Breast Cancer Cells with Tunable Receptor Density. ACS Nano2020,14, 372–383. 9

    work page

  5. [5]

    On the design of precision nanomedicines.Science advances 2020,6, eaat0919

    Tian, X.; Angioletti-Uberti, S.; Battaglia, G. On the design of precision nanomedicines.Science advances 2020,6, eaat0919

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    B.; Albertazzi, L

    Woythe, L.; Tito, N. B.; Albertazzi, L. A quantitative view on multivalent nanomedicine targeting. Advanced drug delivery reviews2021,169, 1–21

    work page

  7. [7]

    V.; Curk, T.; Richter, R

    Dubacheva, G. V.; Curk, T.; Richter, R. P. Determinants of superselectivity – practical concepts for application in biology and medicine.Accounts of chemical research2023,56, 729–739

    work page

  8. [8]

    I.; Bundle, D

    Kitov, P. I.; Bundle, D. R. On the nature of the multivalency effect: a thermodynamic model.Journal of the American Chemical Society2003,125, 16271–16284

    work page

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Statistical thermodynamics of the stability of multivalent ligand-receptor com- plexes.Physical review letters2008,100, 178101

    Diestler, D.; Knapp, E. Statistical thermodynamics of the stability of multivalent ligand-receptor com- plexes.Physical review letters2008,100, 178101

  2. [10]

    M.; Petersburg, J

    Csizmar, C. M.; Petersburg, J. R.; Perry, T. J.; Rozumalski, L.; Hackel, B. J.; Wagner, C. R. Multivalent ligand binding to cell membrane antigens: defining the interplay of affinity, valency, and expression density.Journal of the American Chemical Society2018,141, 251–261

  3. [11]

    Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews2025,225, 115681

    Li,S.; Lou,Y.; Bastings,M.M.MultivalentengineeringofbiointerfaceswithDNA-basednanomaterials. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews2025,225, 115681

  4. [12]

    Mulder, A.; Huskens, J.; Reinhoudt, D. N. Multivalency in supramolecular chemistry and nanofabrica- tion.Organic & biomolecular chemistry2004,2, 3409–3424

  5. [13]

    Kinetics of receptor-ligand interactions in immune responses.Cell Mol Im- munol2006,3, 79–86

    Long, M.; Lü, S.; Sun, G. Kinetics of receptor-ligand interactions in immune responses.Cell Mol Im- munol2006,3, 79–86

  6. [14]

    M.; Correa, J.; Riguera, R.; Fernandez-Megia, E

    Munoz, E. M.; Correa, J.; Riguera, R.; Fernandez-Megia, E. Real-time evaluation of binding mechanisms in multivalent interactions: a surface plasmon resonance kinetic approach.Journal of the American Chemical Society2013,135, 5966–5969

  7. [15]

    Insights into intercellular receptor-ligand binding kinetics in cell communication.Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology2022,10, 953353

    An, C.; Wang, X.; Song, F.; Hu, J.; Li, L. Insights into intercellular receptor-ligand binding kinetics in cell communication.Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology2022,10, 953353

  8. [16]

    I.; Liu, B.; Edwards, L

    Huang, J.; Zarnitsyna, V. I.; Liu, B.; Edwards, L. J.; Jiang, N.; Evavold, B. D.; Zhu, C. The kinetics of two-dimensional TCR and pMHC interactions determine T-cell responsiveness.Nature2010,464, 932–936

  9. [17]

    D.; Zhu, C

    Liu, B.; Chen, W.; Evavold, B. D.; Zhu, C. Accumulation of dynamic catch bonds between TCR and agonist peptide-MHC triggers T cell signaling.Cell2014,157, 357–368

  10. [18]

    J.; Hu, W.; others Mechano-regulation of peptide-MHC class I conformations determines TCR antigen recognition

    Wu, P.; Zhang, T.; Liu, B.; Fei, P.; Cui, L.; Qin, R.; Zhu, H.; Yao, D.; Martinez, R. J.; Hu, W.; others Mechano-regulation of peptide-MHC class I conformations determines TCR antigen recognition. Molecular cell2019,73, 1015–1027

  11. [19]

    Stylianopoulos, T.; Jain, R. K. Design considerations for nanotherapeutics in oncology.Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine2015,11, 1893–1907

    1907

  12. [20]

    Improved targeting of cancers with nanotherapeutics

    Foster, C.; Watson, A.; Kaplinsky, J.; Kamaly, N. Improved targeting of cancers with nanotherapeutics. Cancer Nanotechnology: Methods and Protocols2017, 13–37

  13. [21]

    Review of the pharmacokinetics of nanodrugs.Nanotech- nology Reviews2023,12, 20220525

    Shao, X.; Shi, C.; Wu, S.; Wang, F.; Li, W. Review of the pharmacokinetics of nanodrugs.Nanotech- nology Reviews2023,12, 20220525

  14. [22]

    A Review on Perception of Binding Kinetics in Affinity Biosensors: Challenges and Opportunities.ACS omega2025, 10, 4197–4216

    McCann, B.; Tipper, B.; Shahbeigi, S.; Soleimani, M.; Jabbari, M.; Nasr Esfahani, M. A Review on Perception of Binding Kinetics in Affinity Biosensors: Challenges and Opportunities.ACS omega2025, 10, 4197–4216. 10

  15. [23]

    K.; Tunesi, L.; Cicuta, P.; Mognetti, B

    Lanfranco, R.; Jana, P. K.; Tunesi, L.; Cicuta, P.; Mognetti, B. M.; Di Michele, L.; Bruylants, G. Kinetics of nanoparticle–membrane adhesion mediated by multivalent interactions.Langmuir2019,35, 2002–2012

    2002

  16. [24]

    Schulte, C.; Soldà, A.; Spänig, S.; Adams, N.; Bekić, I.; Streicher, W.; Heider, D.; Strasser, R.; Maric, H. M. Multivalent binding kinetics resolved by fluorescence proximity sensing.Communications biology2022,5, 1070

  17. [25]

    R.; Majoros, I

    Hong, S.; Leroueil, P. R.; Majoros, I. J.; Orr, B. G.; Baker, J. R.; Holl, M. M. B. The binding avidity of a nanoparticle-based multivalent targeted drug delivery platform.Chemistry & biology2007,14, 107–115

  18. [26]

    L.; Lewis, T

    Tassa, C.; Duffner, J. L.; Lewis, T. A.; Weissleder, R.; Schreiber, S. L.; Koehler, A. N.; Shaw, S. Y. Binding affinity and kinetic analysis of targeted small molecule-modified nanoparticles.Bioconjugate chemistry2010,21, 14–19

  19. [27]

    K.; Myc, A.; Silpe, J

    Choi, S. K.; Myc, A.; Silpe, J. E.; Sumit, M.; Wong, P. T.; McCarthy, K.; Desai, A. M.; Thomas, T. P.; Kotlyar, A.; Holl, M. M. B.; others Dendrimer-based multivalent vancomycin nanoplatform for targeting the drug-resistant bacterial surface.ACS nano2013,7, 214–228

  20. [28]

    Multivalent weak interactions enhance selectivity of inter- particle binding.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences2020,117, 22690–22697

    Scheepers, M.; van IJzendoorn, L.; Prins, M. Multivalent weak interactions enhance selectivity of inter- particle binding.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences2020,117, 22690–22697

  21. [29]

    P.; Bezrukov, S

    Hoogerheide, D. P.; Bezrukov, S. M. Logarithmic Binding and Stretched-Exponential Kinetics in Pe- ripheral Protein Interactions with Lipid Membrane Surfaces.The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 2026,Asap article, PMID: 41846524

    2026

  22. [30]

    M.; Arndt, K

    Müller, K. M.; Arndt, K. M.; Plückthun, A. Model and simulation of multivalent binding to fixed ligands.Analytical biochemistry1998,261, 149–158

  23. [31]

    Vauquelin, G.; Charlton, S. J. Exploring avidity: understanding the potential gains in functional affinity and target residence time of bivalent and heterobivalent ligands.British journal of pharmacology2013, 168, 1771–1785

  24. [32]

    J.; Bruncsics, B.; Sarkar, C

    Errington, W. J.; Bruncsics, B.; Sarkar, C. A. Mechanisms of noncanonical binding dynamics in multi- valent protein–protein interactions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences2019,116, 25659– 25667

  25. [33]

    J.; Sarkar, C

    Bruncsics, B.; Errington, W. J.; Sarkar, C. A. MVsim is a toolset for quantifying and designing multi- valent interactions.Nature communications2022,13, 5029

  26. [34]

    Chabaud, B.; Bonnet, H.; Lartia, R.; Van Der Heyden, A.; Auzély-Velty, R.; Boturyn, D.; Coche- Guérente, L.; Dubacheva, G. V. Influence of Surface Chemistry on Host/Guest Interactions: A Model Study on Redox-Sensitiveβ-Cyclodextrin/Ferrocene Complexes.Langmuir2024,40, 4646–4660

  27. [35]

    V.; Curk, T.; Auzély-Velty, R.; Frenkel, D.; Richter, R

    Dubacheva, G. V.; Curk, T.; Auzély-Velty, R.; Frenkel, D.; Richter, R. P. Designing multivalent probes for tunable superselective targeting.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences2015,112, 5579– 5584

  28. [36]

    Curk, T.; Dobnikar, J.; Frenkel, D.Multivalency: Concepts, Research & Applications; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2018; Chapter 3, pp 75–101

    2018

  29. [37]

    Dubacheva,G.V.; Curk,T.; Mognetti,B.M.; Auzély-Velty,R.; Frenkel,D.; Richter,R.P.Superselective targeting using multivalent polymers.Journal of the American Chemical Society2014,136, 1722–1725

  30. [38]

    McQuarrie, D. A. Stochastic approach to chemical kinetics.Journal of applied probability1967,4, 413–478

  31. [39]

    Gillespie, D. T. Stochastic simulation of chemical kinetics.Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem.2007,58, 35–55. 11

    2007

  32. [40]

    Optimal multivalent targeting of membranes with many distinct receptors.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences2017,114, 7210–7215

    Curk, T.; Dobnikar, J.; Frenkel, D. Optimal multivalent targeting of membranes with many distinct receptors.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences2017,114, 7210–7215

  33. [41]

    Designing Multivalent Copolymers for Selective Targeting of Multicom- ponent Surfaces.Macromolecules2024,57, 5991–6002

    Ravnik, V.; Bren, U.; Curk, T. Designing Multivalent Copolymers for Selective Targeting of Multicom- ponent Surfaces.Macromolecules2024,57, 5991–6002

  34. [42]

    B.; Wang, X.; He, J.; Darici, Y

    Tiwari, P. B.; Wang, X.; He, J.; Darici, Y. Analyzing surface plasmon resonance data: choosing a correct biphasic model for interpretation.Review of Scientific Instruments2015,86, 035001

  35. [43]

    Koshland Jr, D. E. The key–lock theory and the induced fit theory.Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English1995,33, 2375–2378

  36. [44]

    V.; Brisson, A

    Curk, T.; Dubacheva, G. V.; Brisson, A. R.; Richter, R. P. Controlling superselectivity of multivalent interactions with cofactors and competitors.Journal of the American Chemical Society2022,144, 17346–17350

  37. [45]

    V.; Van Der Heyden, A.; Dumy, P.; Kaftan, O.; Auzély-Velty, R.; Coche-Guerente, L.; Labbé, P

    Dubacheva, G. V.; Van Der Heyden, A.; Dumy, P.; Kaftan, O.; Auzély-Velty, R.; Coche-Guerente, L.; Labbé, P. Electrochemically controlled adsorption of Fc-functionalized polymers onβ-CD-modified self- assembled monolayers.Langmuir2010,26, 13976–13986

  38. [46]

    R.; Coche-Guerente, L.; Kwok, J

    Kirichuk, O.; Srimasorn, S.; Zhang, X.; Roberts, A. R.; Coche-Guerente, L.; Kwok, J. C.; Bureau, L.; Débarre, D.; Richter, R. P. Competitive specific anchorage of molecules onto surfaces: quantitative control of grafting densities and contamination by free anchors.Langmuir2023...

  39. [47]

    P.; Aktulga, H

    Thompson, A. P.; Aktulga, H. M.; Berger, R.; Bolintineanu, D. S.; Brown, W. M.; Crozier, P. S.; in ’t Veld, P. J.; Kohlmeyer, A.; Moore, S. G.; Nguyen, T. D.; Shan, R.; Stevens, M. J.; Tranchida, J.; Trott, C.; Plimpton, S. J. LAMMPS - a flexible simulation tool for particle-b...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed July 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.