pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.06949 · v2 · pith:52ONERZJnew · submitted 2025-11-10 · ❄️ cond-mat.soft · physics.bio-ph

Coupling of Lipid Phase Behavior and Protein Oligomerization in a Lattice Model of Raft Membranes

Subhadip Basu , Oded Farago This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 19:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.soft physics.bio-ph
keywords lattice modelraft membranesprotein oligomerizationlipid phase separationMonte Carlo simulationliquid-ordered domainsprotein-lipid affinitykinetic switching
0
0 comments X

The pith

The balance of protein-lipid affinity, protein-protein interactions, and lipid demixing decides whether proteins disperse, form small oligomers, or create large clusters inside liquid-ordered domains.

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

The paper builds a lattice Monte Carlo model of ternary lipid mixtures that separate into liquid-ordered and liquid-disordered phases. Proteins appear as small inclusions whose nearest-neighbor affinities with lipids and with each other can be adjusted independently. Simulations show that the relative strengths of these three interactions determine whether proteins stay isolated, form small groups, or condense into large stable clusters inside the ordered domains. Raising protein density further drives coarsening of the ordered phase. When proteins are allowed to switch stochastically between inactive and active states, the ratio of switching time to the time needed to cross an ordered domain sets the resulting cluster-size distribution.

Core claim

In the lattice model, the competition among protein-lipid affinity, protein-protein attraction, and lipid-lipid demixing selects among dispersed, oligomeric, and large-cluster states inside Lo domains; increasing protein concentration promotes further coarsening of the ordered phase. In the kinetic extension, proteins switch between states with distinct affinities, and the inverse switching rate relative to the diffusion time across an Lo domain controls whether clusters are transient, persistent, or broadly distributed in size.

What carries the argument

Lattice Monte Carlo model of ternary lipids with nearest-neighbor interactions whose affinities for proteins and for other lipids are independently tunable, extended to kinetic Monte Carlo for stochastic state switching.

If this is right

  • Higher protein concentration drives larger Lo domains.
  • Fast switching between affinity states produces only short-lived small oligomers.
  • Slow switching recovers the persistent large clusters seen in the static case.
  • Intermediate switching rates generate wide, continuous cluster-size distributions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Cells might tune protein clustering by changing activation kinetics without altering overall lipid composition.
  • The same interaction-balance principle could organize proteins in other phase-separating membrane systems.
  • Extending the lattice to include next-nearest-neighbor terms would test how robust the reported cluster regimes remain.

Load-bearing premise

A lattice representation that includes only nearest-neighbor interactions and adjustable affinities is enough to capture the essential rules governing protein oligomerization in real membranes that show Lo-Ld coexistence.

What would settle it

Measure the distribution of protein cluster sizes in a phase-separated ternary membrane while varying the rate at which proteins switch between two affinity states relative to their measured diffusion time across an ordered domain.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.06949 by Oded Farago, Subhadip Basu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Equilibrium snapshots of the protein–lipid system (35DPPC): (a) no proteins, (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Fraction of proteins belonging to different cluster sizes for various values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Zoomed-in regions of 35DPPC mixtures showing the locations of small proteins for (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a–d) Equilibrium snapshots of 35DPPC lipid mixtures with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Enlarged views of 35DPPC lipid mixtures with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: In contrast, the extent of clustering is controlled by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Enlarged equilibrium snapshots illustrating the formation and dissolution of small protein clusters over time for switching rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Membrane proteins often form dimers and higher-order oligomers whose stability and spatial organization depend sensitively on their lipid environment. To investigate the physical principles underlying this coupling, we employ a lattice Monte Carlo model of ternary lipid mixtures that exhibit liquid-disordered ($L_d$) and liquid-ordered ($L_o$) phase coexistence. In this framework, proteins are represented as small membrane inclusions with tunable nearest neighbor interactions with both lipids and other proteins, allowing us to examine how protein-lipid affinity competes with protein-protein interactions and lipid-lipid demixing. We find that the balance of these interactions controls whether proteins remain dispersed, assemble into small oligomers, or form large stable clusters within $L_o$ domains, and that increasing the protein concentration further promotes coarsening of the ordered phase. To incorporate ligand-regulated activation, we extend the model to a kinetic Monte Carlo scheme in which proteins stochastically switch between inactive and active states with distinct affinities. The inverse switching rate, relative to the time required for a protein to diffuse across the characteristic size of the $L_o$ domains, governs the aggregation behavior. Rapid switching yields only transient small oligomers, slow switching reproduces the static limit with persistent large clusters, and intermediate rates produce broad cluster-size distributions. These results highlight the interplay between lipid phase organization, protein-lipid affinity, and activation dynamics in regulating membrane protein oligomerization, a coupling that is central to signal transduction and membrane organization in living cells.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a lattice Monte Carlo model of ternary lipid mixtures exhibiting Lo-Ld phase coexistence. Proteins are represented as small inclusions with tunable nearest-neighbor interactions to lipids and to other proteins. The central claim is that the balance among protein-lipid affinity, protein-protein interactions, and lipid-lipid demixing determines whether proteins remain dispersed, form small oligomers, or assemble into large stable clusters inside Lo domains; higher protein concentration further drives coarsening of the ordered phase. A kinetic Monte Carlo extension introduces stochastic switching between inactive and active states with distinct affinities; the ratio of inverse switching rate to the time for a protein to diffuse across an Lo domain then controls aggregation, yielding transient oligomers at fast rates, persistent large clusters at slow rates, and broad cluster-size distributions at intermediate rates.

Significance. If the reported regimes hold, the work supplies a minimal, parameter-tunable lattice framework that isolates how lipid phase organization, interaction affinities, and activation kinetics jointly regulate membrane-protein clustering. This offers qualitative mechanistic insight into raft-mediated oligomerization relevant to signal transduction, and the explicit timescale comparison in the kinetic extension provides a concrete handle for future comparison with experiments or more detailed simulations.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (static-model results): the boundaries between dispersed, small-oligomer, and large-cluster regimes are asserted from simulation snapshots and qualitative statements, yet no cluster-size histograms, average cluster sizes with standard errors, or percolation analysis are reported to demarcate the regimes quantitatively.
  2. [Kinetic extension] Kinetic extension (described after the static results): the governing ratio of inverse switching rate to Lo-domain diffusion time is introduced without an explicit measurement or formula for the diffusion time (e.g., mean first-passage time across the observed Lo-domain radius), rendering the classification into rapid/intermediate/slow regimes qualitative rather than quantitative.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Model] The abstract and model section should state the concrete numerical values (or ranges) chosen for the three nearest-neighbor interaction strengths and the protein concentration used to generate the reported behaviors.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions would benefit from explicit listing of the interaction parameters and switching rates corresponding to each panel or curve.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate quantitative analyses that strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (static-model results): the boundaries between dispersed, small-oligomer, and large-cluster regimes are asserted from simulation snapshots and qualitative statements, yet no cluster-size histograms, average cluster sizes with standard errors, or percolation analysis are reported to demarcate the regimes quantitatively.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative metrics would provide a clearer demarcation of the regimes. In the revised manuscript we have added cluster-size histograms and mean cluster sizes (with standard errors from independent runs) for representative parameter sets in §3. We have also included a percolation analysis that identifies the interaction-strength threshold at which large connected clusters emerge. These additions make the regime boundaries explicit and reproducible. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Kinetic extension] Kinetic extension (described after the static results): the governing ratio of inverse switching rate to Lo-domain diffusion time is introduced without an explicit measurement or formula for the diffusion time (e.g., mean first-passage time across the observed Lo-domain radius), rendering the classification into rapid/intermediate/slow regimes qualitative rather than quantitative.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this point. In the revised version we now define the diffusion time explicitly as the mean first-passage time for a protein to traverse the average radius of the Lo domains measured in the static simulations. We supply the computational formula used to obtain this time scale and report the resulting dimensionless ratio for each switching-rate regime, thereby placing the rapid/intermediate/slow classification on a quantitative footing. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Simulation outputs emerge from explicit model rules with no reduction to inputs

full rationale

The paper defines a lattice Monte Carlo model via explicit nearest-neighbor interaction parameters for protein-lipid and protein-protein affinities plus lipid-lipid demixing, together with stochastic switching rules in the kinetic extension. Reported regimes (dispersed proteins, small oligomers, large Lo clusters) and dependence on inverse switching rate versus domain diffusion time are direct simulation outputs generated by running the defined dynamics; they are not obtained by fitting a parameter to one observable and then relabeling a closely related quantity as a prediction, nor by self-citation that supplies the central uniqueness claim. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained: the Hamiltonian and Monte Carlo update rules constitute independent inputs whose consequences are computed rather than presupposed.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a small set of tunable interaction energies and the lattice approximation itself; no new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • protein-lipid nearest-neighbor interaction strength
    Tunable parameter controlling affinity between proteins and Lo-preferring lipids; directly sets whether proteins partition into ordered domains.
  • protein-protein nearest-neighbor interaction strength
    Tunable parameter controlling direct attraction or repulsion between proteins; competes with lipid-mediated effects.
  • inverse switching rate
    Kinetic parameter compared to diffusion time across Lo domain size; controls transient vs persistent oligomerization.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Nearest-neighbor interactions on a lattice are sufficient to reproduce the qualitative phase behavior and oligomerization trends of real ternary lipid membranes.
    Invoked throughout the model definition to justify the coarse-grained representation.
  • domain assumption Proteins can be represented as small inclusions whose state-dependent affinities are independent of lipid chain length or curvature effects.
    Underlying the representation of proteins as lattice sites with tunable interactions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5793 in / 1506 out tokens · 62525 ms · 2026-05-21T19:34:51.965863+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    The model Hamiltonian reads E=−ΩkBT∑iδsi,1−∑⟨i,j⟩[ε22δsi,2δsj,2+…+ε55δsi,5δsj,5]… We set Ω=3.9, ε22=1.3ε, ε23=0.72ε, ε24=0.40ε… ε25 and ε55 control protein–lipid and protein–protein interactions.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/ArithmeticFromLogic.lean LogicNat unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    proteins switch between inactive (s=5) and active (s=6) states… inverse switching rate relative to the time required for a protein to diffuse across the characteristic size of the Lo domains

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 86 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. F. Nagle and S. Tristram-Nagle, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Rev. Biomembr.1469, 159 (2000)

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Hianik and V

    T. Hianik and V . I. Passechnik,Bilayer lipid membranes. Struc- ture and mechanical properties(Springer Science & Business Media, 1995)

    work page 1995

  3. [3]

    Shevchenko and K

    A. Shevchenko and K. Simons, Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol.11, 593 (2010)

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    xiao Shen, P

    Y . xiao Shen, P. O. Saboe, I. T. Sines, M. Erbakan, and M. Ku- mar, J. Membr. Sci.454, 359 (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Alberts,Molecular biology of the cell(WW Norton & Com- pany, 2017)

    B. Alberts,Molecular biology of the cell(WW Norton & Com- pany, 2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Guigas and M

    G. Guigas and M. Weiss, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Biomembr. 1858, 2441 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Cheng and J

    X. Cheng and J. C. Smith, Chem. Rev.119, 5849 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    W. N. Konings, H. R. Kaback, and J. S. Lolkema,Transport processes in eukaryotic and prokaryotic organisms(Elsevier, 1996)

    work page 1996

  9. [9]

    Membrane proteins: structure, function and motion,

    M. Jelokhani-Niaraki, “Membrane proteins: structure, function and motion,” (2022)

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Whitford,Proteins: structure and function(John Wiley & Sons, 2013)

    D. Whitford,Proteins: structure and function(John Wiley & Sons, 2013)

    work page 2013

  11. [11]

    Klein, M

    P. Klein, M. Kanehisa, and C. DeLisi, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Biomembr.815, 468 (1985)

    work page 1985

  12. [12]

    V on Heijne, Nat

    G. V on Heijne, Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol.7, 909 (2006)

    work page 2006

  13. [13]

    A. E. Speers and C. C. Wu, Chem. Rev.107, 3687 (2007)

    work page 2007

  14. [14]

    G. A. Cross, Annu. Rev. Cell Biol.6, 1 (1990)

    work page 1990

  15. [15]

    S. Saha, A. A. Anilkumar, and S. Mayor, J. Lipid Res.57, 159 (2016)

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    O. G. Mouritsen, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Biomembr.1798, 1286 (2010)

    work page 2010

  17. [17]

    Schuck, M

    S. Schuck, M. Honsho, K. Ekroos, A. Shevchenko, and K. Si- mons, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.100, 5795 (2003)

    work page 2003

  18. [18]

    L. J. Pike, J. Lipid Res.47, 1597 (2006)

    work page 2006

  19. [19]

    Marsh,Handbook of lipid bilayers(CRC press, 2013)

    D. Marsh,Handbook of lipid bilayers(CRC press, 2013)

    work page 2013

  20. [20]

    G. W. Feigenson, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Biomembr.1788, 47 (2009)

    work page 2009

  21. [21]

    Komura and D

    S. Komura and D. Andelman, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci.208, 34 (2014)

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    S. L. Veatch, O. Soubias, S. L. Keller, and K. Gawrisch, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.104, 17650 (2007)

    work page 2007

  23. [23]

    L. S. Hirst, P. Uppamoochikkal, and C. Lor, Liq. Cryst.38, 1735 (2011)

    work page 2011

  24. [24]

    C. Rios, B. Jordan, I. Gomes, and L. Devi, Pharmacol. Ther. 92, 71 (2001)

    work page 2001

  25. [25]

    D. Yang, Q. Zhou, V . Labroska, S. Qin, S. Darbalaei, Y . Wu, E. Yuliantie, L. Xie, H. Tao, J. Cheng,et al., Signal Transduct Target Ther.6, 7 (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Faron-Górecka, M

    A. Faron-Górecka, M. Szlachta, M. Kolasa, J. Solich, A. Górecki, M. Ku ´smider, D. ˙Zurawek, and M. Dziedzicka- Wasylewska, inG Protein-Coupled Receptors, Part B, Methods in Cell Biology, V ol. 149, edited by A. K. Shukla (Academic Press, 2019) pp. 155–178

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    V . V . Gurevich and E. V . Gurevich, Trends Pharmacol Sci.29, 234 (2008)

    work page 2008

  28. [28]

    Milligan, D

    G. Milligan, D. Ramsay, G. Pascal, and J. J. Carrillo, Life Sci. 74, 181 (2003)

    work page 2003

  29. [29]

    Casadó, A

    V . Casadó, A. Cortés, J. Mallol, K. Pérez-Capote, S. Ferré, C. Lluis, R. Franco, and E. I. Canela, Pharmacol. Ther.124, 248 (2009)

    work page 2009

  30. [30]

    Cunningham, A

    O. Cunningham, A. Andolfo, M. L. Santovito, L. Iuzzolino, F. Blasi, and N. Sidenius, EMBO J. (2003)

    work page 2003

  31. [31]

    K. W. Wucherpfennig, E. Gagnon, M. J. Call, E. S. Huseby, and M. E. Call, Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol.2, a005140 (2010)

    work page 2010

  32. [32]

    M. Xue, C. M. Vines, T. Buranda, D. F. Cimino, T. A. Bennett, and E. R. Prossnitz, J. Biol. Chem.279, 45175 (2004)

    work page 2004

  33. [33]

    Y . Ge, A. P. Siegel, R. Jordan, and C. A. Naumann, Biophys. J. 107, 2101 (2014)

    work page 2014

  34. [34]

    Feron, T

    O. Feron, T. W. Smith, T. Michel, and R. A. Kelly, J. Biol. Chem.272, 17744 (1997)

    work page 1997

  35. [35]

    Ishizaka, K

    N. Ishizaka, K. K. Griendling, B. Lassè‘gue, and R. W. Alexan- der, Hypertension32, 459 (1998)

    work page 1998

  36. [36]

    Huang, W

    P. Huang, W. Xu, S.-I. Yoon, C. Chen, P. L.-G. Chong, and L.-Y . Liu-Chen, Biochem. Pharmacol.73, 534 (2007)

    work page 2007

  37. [37]

    V . O. Rybin, X. Xu, M. P. Lisanti, and S. F. Steinberg, J. Biol. Chem.275, 41447 (2000)

    work page 2000

  38. [38]

    Fallahi-Sichani and J

    M. Fallahi-Sichani and J. J. Linderman, PloS one4, e6604 (2009)

    work page 2009

  39. [39]

    Savi, J.-L

    P. Savi, J.-L. Zachayus, N. Delesque-Touchard, C. Labouret, C. Hervé, M.-F. Uzabiaga, J.-M. Pereillo, J.-M. Culouscou, F. Bono, P. Ferrara,et al., Proc. Natl.Acad.Sci.103, 11069 (2006)

    work page 2006

  40. [40]

    Hoˇrejší, Immunol

    V . Hoˇrejší, Immunol. Rev.191, 148 (2003)

    work page 2003

  41. [41]

    H.-T. He, A. Lellouch, and D. Marguet, inSeminars in im- munology, V ol. 17 (Elsevier, 2005) pp. 23–33

    work page 2005

  42. [42]

    P. S. Kabouridis, Mol. Membr. Biol.23, 49 (2006)

    work page 2006

  43. [43]

    Chung, R

    I. Chung, R. Akita, R. Vandlen, D. Toomre, J. Schlessinger, and I. Mellman, Nature464, 783 (2010)

    work page 2010

  44. [44]

    M. A. Lemmon and J. Schlessinger, Cell141, 1117 (2010)

    work page 2010

  45. [45]

    D. R. Singh, C. King, M. Salotto, and K. Hristova, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Biomembr.1862, 183015 (2020)

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    Ruzzi, C

    F. Ruzzi, C. Cappello, M. S. Semprini, L. Scalambra, S. An- gelicola, O. M. Pittino, L. Landuzzi, A. Palladini, P. Nanni, and P.-L. Lollini, Cell commun. signal.22, 489 (2024)

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    Abulrob, S

    A. Abulrob, S. Giuseppin, M. F. Andrade, A. McDermid, M. Moreno, and D. Stanimirovic, Oncogene23, 6967 (2004)

    work page 2004

  48. [48]

    K. A. Dill, Biochemistry29, 7133 (1990)

    work page 1990

  49. [49]

    Lins and R

    L. Lins and R. Brasseur, FASEB J.9, 535 (1995)

    work page 1995

  50. [50]

    A view of the hydrophobic effect,

    N. T. Southall, K. A. Dill, and A. Haymet, “A view of the hydrophobic effect,” (2002)

    work page 2002

  51. [51]

    R. S. Spolar, J.-H. Ha, and M. Record Jr, Proc. Natl.Acad.Sci. 86, 8382 (1989)

    work page 1989

  52. [52]

    Zhou and X

    H.-X. Zhou and X. Pang, Chem. Rev.118, 1691 (2018)

    work page 2018

  53. [53]

    C. M. Roth, B. L. Neal, and A. M. Lenhoff, Biophys. J.70, 977 (1996)

    work page 1996

  54. [54]

    Gorbenko and V

    G. Gorbenko and V . Trusova, Adv. Protein Chem. Struct. Biol. 84, 113 (2011)

    work page 2011

  55. [55]

    Mizanur Rahman, Z

    M. Mizanur Rahman, Z. Tariq Muhseen, M. Junaid, and H. Zhang, Curr. Protein Pept. Sci.16, 502 (2015). 11

    work page 2015

  56. [56]

    F. Tao, Q. Han, and P. Yang, Chem. Commun.59, 14093 (2023)

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    Banerjee and B

    P. Banerjee and B. Bagchi, Proc. Natl.Acad.Sci.117, 2302 (2020)

    work page 2020

  58. [58]

    Thirumalai, G

    D. Thirumalai, G. Reddy, and J. E. Straub, Acc. Chem. Res. 45, 83 (2012)

    work page 2012

  59. [59]

    Bruinsma and P

    R. Bruinsma and P. Pincus, Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 1, 401 (1996)

    work page 1996

  60. [60]

    Farago, Phys

    O. Farago, Phys. Rev. E81, 050902 (2010)

    work page 2010

  61. [61]

    Weil and O

    N. Weil and O. Farago, Eur. Phys. J. E33, 81 (2010)

    work page 2010

  62. [62]

    Harries, S

    D. Harries, S. May, and A. Ben-Shaul, Soft Matter9, 9268 (2013)

    work page 2013

  63. [63]

    Kurouski, Acc

    D. Kurouski, Acc. Chem. Res.56, 2898 (2023)

    work page 2023

  64. [64]

    M. P. Muller, T. Jiang, C. Sun, M. Lihan, S. Pant, P. Mahinthichaichan, A. Trifan, and E. Tajkhorshid, Chem. Rev.119, 6086 (2019)

    work page 2019

  65. [65]

    F. J.-M. De Meyer, M. Venturoli, and B. Smit, Biophys. J.95, 1851 (2008)

    work page 2008

  66. [66]

    Mar ˇcelja, Biochim

    S. Mar ˇcelja, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Biomembr.455, 1 (1976)

    work page 1976

  67. [67]

    Kargar, S

    F. Kargar, S. Emadi, and H. Fazli, Proteins88, 1540 (2020)

    work page 2020

  68. [68]

    J. Han, K. Pluhackova, T. A. Wassenaar, and R. A. Böckmann, Biophys. J.109, 760 (2015)

    work page 2015

  69. [69]

    Mezei, R

    M. Mezei, R. Latif, and T. F. Davies, Endocrinol.163, bqac168 (2022)

    work page 2022

  70. [70]

    T. A. Dunton, J. E. Goose, D. J. Gavaghan, M. S. Sansom, and J. M. Osborne, PLoS Comput. Biol.10, e1003417 (2014)

    work page 2014

  71. [71]

    Majumder and J

    A. Majumder and J. E. Straub, J. Chem. Theory Comput.17, 2513 (2021)

    work page 2021

  72. [72]

    Brannigan and F

    G. Brannigan and F. L. Brown, Biophys. J.92, 864 (2007)

    work page 2007

  73. [73]

    M. Hu, J. J. Briguglio, and M. Deserno, Biophys. J.102, 1403 (2012)

    work page 2012

  74. [74]

    B. West, F. L. Brown, and F. Schmid, Biophys. J.96, 101 (2009)

    work page 2009

  75. [75]

    Argudo, N

    D. Argudo, N. P. Bethel, F. V . Marcoline, and M. Grabe, Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Biomembr.1858, 1619 (2016)

    work page 2016

  76. [76]

    Illya and M

    G. Illya and M. Deserno, Biophys. J.95, 4163 (2008)

    work page 2008

  77. [77]

    Argudo, N

    D. Argudo, N. P. Bethel, F. V . Marcoline, C. W. Wolgemuth, and M. Grabe, Biophys. J.112, 2159 (2017)

    work page 2017

  78. [78]

    Kahraman, P

    O. Kahraman, P. D. Koch, W. S. Klug, and C. A. Haselwandter, Phys. Rev. E.93, 042410 (2016)

    work page 2016

  79. [79]

    J. Gao, R. Hou, L. Li, and J. Hu, Front. Mol. Biosci8, 811711 (2021)

    work page 2021

  80. [80]

    Morriss-Andrews, F

    A. Morriss-Andrews, F. L. Brown, and J.-E. Shea, J. Phys. Chem. B118, 8420 (2014)

    work page 2014

Showing first 80 references.