Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Deterministic Storage of Quantum Information in the Genetic Code

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The two protons that move during DNA base-pair tautomerism can form exchange-symmetry-protected triplet states, making each base pair a deterministic two-qubit register for NMR quantum computing.

desk verdict A speculative but internally coherent proposal for using the two tautomerism protons in DNA base pairs as a deterministic two-qubit NMR resource; the spin algebra is fine, but the key singlet-triplet ordering is assumed, not computed. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07504 v1 pith:ND2IT77G submitted 2024-12-10 quant-ph cond-mat.otherq-bio.OT

Roberto Rivelino This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.otherq-bio.OT
keywords DNAbasepairsprotontransfertautomerismtripletstatestwo-qubitentanglementNMRquantumcomputerzero-fieldsplittingsuperposition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes that the two protons that shuttle between the bases during DNA tautomerism are not a classical mixture but a quantum resource: each A–T or G–C base pair can be viewed as a two-qubit register whose logical states are proton spin triplet components. The central claim is that exchange symmetry forces the two moving protons into a spatially antisymmetric ground state paired with a symmetric spin triplet, so the pair is deterministically entangled, and that the canonical and tautomeric forms sit in a temperature-dependent coherent superposition $|WCQS\rangle = a(T)|CQS\rangle + b(T)|TQS\rangle$. If this is right, the proton transfer itself provides the minimal two-qubit entanglement needed for quantum computing, and a crystalline DNA device could be read and controlled with nuclear magnetic resonance Ramsey pulses. The paper presents this as a proof-of-principle model and explicitly conditions its conclusion on protecting the proton states from environment-induced decoherence.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the weakly interacting two-proton model (WI2PM) of a base pair, in which the two hydrogen-bonded protons are treated as a confined two-fermion system with coordinates $\mathbf{x}_i = \{\mathbf{r}_i, s_i\}$. Its work is to convert the chemistry of proton transfer into a spin problem: the antisymmetry principle fixes which spatial state can pair with which spin state, so the ground state is a triplet by symmetry, and the zero-field splitting Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_{SS} = D_{SS}(S_z^2 - \tfrac{1}{3}S^2) + E_{SS}(S_x^2 - S_y^2)$, together with the $J$-coupling term $2\pi J\,\mathbf{S}_1\cdot\mathbf{S}_2$, supplies the energy-level structure and the spin-flip transitions that implement gates. The model also introduces the thermally dependent Watson–Crick quantum superposition $|WCQS\rangle = a(T)|CQS\rangle + b(T)|TQS\rangle$ as the equilibrium ansatz, and a second-quantized proton Hamiltonian that can be mapped onto qubits by a fermion-qubit transformation, giving a concrete path to simulating the base pair on a quantum device.

What would settle it

Measure the proton spin state of oriented or crystalline DNA base pairs at low temperature by NMR: if the claim is correct, the two PT protons should show zero-field-split triplet sublevels with dipole-dipole transitions and Ramsey coherence oscillations at the spin-exchange frequency, with no singlet component in the ground state; observing a simple singlet ground state, or Arrhenius tautomer kinetics with no coherent oscillations, would falsify the deterministic-triplet picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that the prototropic tautomerism of DNA base pairs is a spin-allowed, entanglement-preserving process. Treating the two PT-active protons as identical fermions, the ground canonical state $|CQS\rangle$ is $\Psi^{(-)}(\mathbf{r}_1,\mathbf{r}_2)\,\xi^{(S=1)}_{M_S}(s_1,s_2)$: the antisymmetric spatial part (a Fermi hole) must be multiplied by a symmetric triplet spin state, while the excited transition state is $\Psi^{(+)}$ times a singlet. The tautomeric state $|TQS\rangle$ is again a triplet up to a global phase, so the equilibrium $|T\rangle \leftrightarrow |S^\ddagger\rangle \leftrightarrow |T^*\rangle$ resembles singlet fission and triplet–triplet annihilation among protons rather than a chemical bond forming or breaking. With zero-field splitting and indirect $J$-coupling, the triplet sublevels $|T_x\rangle$, $|T_y\rangle$, $|T_z\rangle$ are maximally entangled Bell states, and the two-proton spin Hamiltonian becomes a pseudo-qutrit whose evolution under Ramsey pulses can prepare and read out qubit superpositions.

Load-bearing premise

The entire construction rests on treating the two moving protons in a base pair as identical, indistinguishable quantum particles whose ground spatial state is antisymmetric and whose canonical–tautomeric equilibrium is a genuine coherent superposition; if the protons are distinguishable, or if decoherence converts the superposition into a classical mixture, the deterministic triplet entanglement claim no longer follows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Each base pair becomes a protected two-qubit register, so the number of available quantum units scales with the length of the DNA double strand.
  • The tautomeric equilibrium acts as an intrinsic gate: canonical-to-tautomeric conversion is represented by Pauli-X operations on the proton spins, and in the four-qubit zwitterionic picture by creation and annihilation operators, so proton dynamics can implement quantum logic rather than only store bits.
  • Because the three triplet sublevels split even at zero magnetic field, each base pair can encode a pseudo-qutrit as well as qubits, and Ramsey pulse sequences can prepare Bell states and project the result into readable Zeeman states.
  • A crystalline DNA sample, if kept free of environment-induced decoherence, could serve as a room-temperature NMR quantum processor and cryptography platform, since the tautomeric triplet states are thermally accessible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the exchange-symmetry argument is isotope-sensitive; replacing the two protons by deuterons reverses the spatial and spin pairing, so deuterated base pairs should lose the protected triplet ground state, making deuteration a direct probe of the model.
  • Beyond the paper: the same two-fermion logic could extend to other hydrogen-bonded dimers with double proton transfer, such as carboxylic acid dimers or KHCO3-type crystals, making DNA one instance of a general proton-triplet quantum register.
  • Beyond the paper: the model's largest unknown is the coherence time of the proton superposition inside the double helix; measuring off-diagonal density-matrix elements via two-dimensional NMR or Ramsey interferometry on oriented DNA would quantify whether the WCQS is genuinely coherent or merely a thermal mixture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the two protons participating in the double proton transfer (PT) of Watson–Crick base pairs can serve as two-qubit units for an NMR-based quantum computer. The model treats the two PT-active protons as identical fermions in a weakly interacting two-proton model (WI2PM), represents the canonical and tautomeric forms as a coherent Watson–Crick quantum superposition (WCQS), and claims that the ground state of each base pair is an antisymmetric spatial state multiplied by a symmetric triplet spin state. From this it concludes that the proton spins are deterministically prepared in a superposition of triplet states and that the PT process effectively implements a singlet-fission-like conversion that conserves triplet entanglement. The paper then develops zero-field-splitting (ZFS) and J-coupling spin Hamiltonians, a pseudo-qutrit description of the triplet subspace, and quantum-circuit schemes for Bell-state preparation and controlled gates, and discusses simulation on a quantum computer via fermion-qubit mappings.

Significance. If the central claim were quantitatively justified, the paper would identify a concrete molecular platform for storing and manipulating quantum information in nuclear spins at room temperature, with potential connections to DNA-based computing and mutagenesis. The paper is valuable as a speculative proof-of-principle: it gives a self-contained spin-algebraic framework, correctly identifies the ZFS eigenstates as maximally entangled triplet states, and sketches experimentally testable Ramsey-pulse sequences. It also builds explicitly on prior work by Slocombe et al. and other references, and it is transparent about several limitations, including decoherence and the lack of an experimental proof of concept. However, the load-bearing physical assertion—that the ground state of the two PT protons is a triplet—is assumed rather than derived or computed. No numerical values are provided for the exchange integral, the singlet-triplet gap, the ZFS parameters, or the J-coupling, and the WCQS is posited as a coherent superposition without a justification that the thermal tautomeric equilibrium is not an incoherent mixture.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1.2, after Eq. (4)] The claim that the ground state of the two PT protons is the spatially antisymmetric state Ψ(−) (times a triplet spin state) is not justified. For two identical fermions in two different H-bond orbitals, both spatial symmetries are in principle allowed; the ordering is governed by the difference in single-particle energies and the exchange integral K = ⟨ψ_i(1)ψ_j(2)|1/r_12|ψ_j(1)ψ_i(2)⟩. The paper asserts that 'proton-proton repulsion ... is sufficient to remove this degeneracy' without providing an estimate of K, the resulting singlet-triplet gap, or a comparison of that gap with kT and with the ZFS parameters D_SS and E_SS introduced later. In Watson–Crick G–C and A–T, the two transferring protons sit in chemically inequivalent H-bonds (e.g., N–H···N vs N–H···O), so their spatial overlap and exchange integral are expected to be small, and the ordering could even be inverted. If the physical ground state is a singlet, or if singlet and triplet states are thermally mixed, then the maximally entangled triplet states of Eq. (10) are not the stationary states of the proton pair, and the 'deterministic preparation' claim fails. The paper needs to provide a quantitative estimate or a credible bounding argument for the exchange splitting and the associated thermal population.
  2. [Eq. (1) and Section 3.1.1] The Watson–Crick quantum superposition |WCQS⟩ = a(T)|CQS⟩ + b(T)|TQS⟩ is stated as a coherent superposition in thermal equilibrium, but the paper does not derive or justify the coherence. The cited tautomer occupation probability at T = 300 K (1.73 × 10⁻⁴, from ref 48) is a population, not a coherence; the density matrix could equally well be an incoherent mixture of CQS and TQS. Coherent superposition is central to the proposed entanglement resource: a statistical mixture of triplet and singlet (or of canonical and tautomeric states) has reduced or zero entanglement. The paper acknowledges environment-induced decoherence only to set it aside with the phrase 'if the DNA structure is sufficiently protected.' This is a load-bearing assumption that needs at least a concrete decoherence model or an order-of-magnitude estimate of the proton-transfer coherence time versus the thermalization time.
  3. [Section 3.2.2, Eq. (11)] The singlet-fission analogy is used to assert that the transition-state singlet |S‡⟩ decays into two entangled triplet pairs, conserves triplet entanglement, and therefore supports the WCQS. However, the paper provides no calculation linking the two-proton Hamiltonian of Eq. (2) (or Eq. (23)) to the spin state |S‡⟩ = (|T_x T_x*⟩ + |T_y T_y*⟩ + |T_z T_z*⟩)/√3. No matrix elements, coupling constants, or timescales are given for the fission or triplet-triplet annihilation processes. The analogy to electronic singlet fission in organic crystals is suggestive, but without a model Hamiltonian for the proton-hole interaction it does not establish that the tautomeric interconversion is spin-allowed and coherence-preserving.
  4. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (7)–(18)] The ZFS parameters D_SS and E_SS and the J-coupling constant are introduced formally, but no numerical values or even order-of-magnitude estimates are supplied for protons in DNA base pairs. Consequently, Eq. (18) and the quantum-circuit proposals in Section 4.3 remain purely schematic. More importantly, the validity of the pseudo-qutrit model requires that the ZFS splittings and the exchange interaction be large enough to isolate the triplet subspace from the singlet and from thermal fluctuations; without numerical input the paper cannot support its claim that base pairs 'satisfy the necessary and sufficient conditions for quantum computing' (Section 4.1). The manuscript should either provide estimates from independent calculations or explicitly state that the proposal is conditional on such parameter values.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] The phrase 'prototropic tautomrism' is a typo; it should read 'prototropic tautomerism'.
  2. [Section 3.1.2] The abstract and outlook assert that the nuclear spins 'can be deterministically prepared' in triplet superpositions, but the body of the paper (Section 3.1.2, just before Eq. (5)) says only that the ground state 'might be described by' Ψ(−). The strength of the claim should be aligned consistently throughout the manuscript.
  3. [Section 3.2.1, after Eq. (7)] The text states that γℏ = gβ where β is the Bohr magneton; for nuclear spins the appropriate magneton is the nuclear magneton. This is a definitional error and should be corrected.
  4. [Equation numbering] Equation (20) appears immediately after Eq. (18) with no Eq. (19) in between; the numbering should be checked or the missing equation supplied.
  5. [Figure 4 caption] The caption refers to a proton on N2 that is 'not directly involved in the usual tautomerization process,' which is confusing because the model explicitly treats two PT-active protons per base pair; the figure and text should make clear how many protons are being described in the G–C and A–T cases.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the triplet-entanglement claim is a conditional spin-statistics consequence of explicitly assumed spatial antisymmetry, not a restatement of the input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Section 3.1.2 (Eqs. 4-6) makes a genuine spin-statistics inference: if the two PT-active protons are identical fermions and the spatial ground state is the antisymmetric combination, then the spin part must be a symmetric triplet. The paper gives a physical, though qualitative, reason for the antisymmetric spatial ground state via the Fermi hole and proton-proton repulsion, and it explicitly hedges with 'might be described by' and later says 'the spatial antisymmetry needs to be assumed' (Section 3.1.3). That is an explicit assumption, not a hidden definitional equivalence. The WCQS superposition in Eq. 1 is an input borrowed from refs 48 and 64, including the tautomer occupation probability 1.73e-4 at 300 K; it is not claimed to be derived in this paper, so it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The ZFS triplet eigenvectors in Eq. 10 are standard entangled two-spin states; calling them maximally entangled is a mathematical fact about triplet states, not a circular result. The protonic singlet-fission model (Eq. 11) is imported from the molecular singlet-fission literature and used as an analogy. The author's own Outlook states the main limitation: whether spatial coherence survives at high temperatures must be established experimentally. Self-citations (refs 41 and 78) are peripheral and not load-bearing. Thus no equation reduces to its input by construction, and no prediction is forced by a fitted parameter; the result is conditional on stated assumptions, which is an evidence concern rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model imports thermal occupation amplitudes and barrier heights from prior work, introduces phenomenological ZFS and J parameters without numerical values, and assumes identical-proton exchange symmetry and coherent WCQS formation. No new fitted constants are produced; the central spin-statistics step is standard but is applied to an unverified physical picture.

free parameters (4)
  • a(T), b(T) WCQS amplitudes = |b(300 K)|^2 = 1.73 x 10^-4 (from ref 48)
    Thermal occupation coefficients of the tautomeric state in the WCQS; they set the population imbalance but do not enter the spin-statistics triplet derivation.
  • D_SS, E_SS zero-field splitting parameters = not specified
    Phenomenological ZFS tensor parameters in Eq. 9; needed for the proposed NMR gate implementation, but no numerical values from DNA base pairs are provided.
  • J indirect spin-spin coupling = not specified
    Scalar J-coupling in Eqs. 12 and 15 is invoked for NMR controlled gates; no value for a base-pair proton pair is provided.
  • delta_E forward reaction barrier = ~0.7 eV (from ref 48)
    Used to estimate the singlet decoherence time tau_s approximately equal to h-bar over delta_E, about 1 fs, and displayed in Fig. 6; borrowed from earlier calculations.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The two protons involved in proton transfer are identical, indistinguishable fermions and can be represented by exchange-symmetrized Slater determinants.
    Assumed in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, Eq. 3. The protons sit in different chemical H-bonds, such as H1 in G and H4 in C, and may be distinguishable; no evidence for exchange symmetry in a base pair is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The tautomeric equilibrium is a coherent quantum superposition WCQS = a(T)|CQS> + b(T)|TQS> rather than an incoherent thermal mixture.
    Eq. 1 and Section 3.1.1 state this as a starting point; the entire quantum-information possibility depends on this coherence.
  • domain assumption The ground two-proton spatial state of a base pair is antisymmetric, forcing a triplet spin ground state.
    Section 3.1.2 and Figure 5 argue that proton-proton repulsion makes the antisymmetric spatial state lower in energy, but the text says "might be described" by it; the actual singlet-triplet ordering is not calculated for DNA base pairs.
  • ad hoc to paper Proton transfer can be described by a singlet-fission-like mechanism in which the transition-state singlet decays into two entangled triplet pairs.
    Section 3.2.2 and Eq. 11 assert |S‡> = (1/sqrt(3))(|T_x T_x*> + |T_y T_y*> + |T_z T_z*>); no Hamiltonian or rates for proton singlet fission in DNA are given.
  • domain assumption Environment-induced decoherence can be neglected if the DNA structure is sufficiently protected.
    The abstract and Section 5 condition the entire proposal on protection against decoherence; no quantitative criterion or experimental demonstration is supplied.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deterministic Storage of Quantum Information in the Genetic Code." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ND2IT77G

@misc{pith2026241207504,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deterministic Storage of Quantum Information in the Genetic Code},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ND2IT77G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07504}
}
read the original abstract

DNA has been proposed as a chemical platform for computing and data storage, paving the way for building DNA-based computers. Recently, DNA has been hypothesized as an ideal quantum computer with the base pairs working as Josephson junctions. There are still major challenges to be overcome in these directions, but they do not prevent deviceful perspectives of the main problem. The present paper explores DNA base pairs as elementary units for a scalable nuclear magnetic resonance quantum computer (NMRQC). First, it presents an overview of the proton transfer (PT) mechanism during the prototropic tautomerism in the base pairs, scoring the current stage. Second, as a proof-of-principle, the paper examines these molecular structures as quantum processing units (QPUs) of a biochemical quantum device. For the model proposed here, it is theoretically demonstrated that the nuclear spins involved in the PT of base pairs can be deterministically prepared in a superposition of triplet states. Under appropriate conditions, the proton dynamics provides the minimal two-qubit entanglement required for quantum computing. The dynamics between the canonical and tautomeric quantum states (CQS and TQS, respectively) is determined from a thermally dependent Watson-Crick quantum superposition (WCQS); i.e., |WCQS> = a(T)|CQS> + b(T)|TQS> with |a(T)|^2 + |b(T)|^2 = 1. If the DNA structure is sufficiently protected to avoid environment-induced decoherence of the confined-proton quantum states, quantum information can be successfully encoded in several base pairs along the coiled double strand. As a potential applicability, a crystalline DNA device could be employed for quantum computing and cryptography controlled by a sequence of Ramsey pulses. Finally, this study critically evaluates these possibilities toward a proof-of-concept of a DNA-based quantum computer.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    DNA Packaging: Nucleosomes and Chromatin

    (1) Annunziato, A. DNA Packaging: Nucleosomes and Chromatin. Nat. Edu. 2008, 1,

    work page 2008

  2. [18]

    Ultrafast Two -Dimensional Infrared Spectroscopy of Guanine–Cytosine Base Pairs in DNA Oligomers

    (93) Greve, C.; Elsaesser, T . Ultrafast Two -Dimensional Infrared Spectroscopy of Guanine–Cytosine Base Pairs in DNA Oligomers. J. Phys. Chem. B 2013 117, 14009– 14017. 40 (94) Del Amo, J. M. L.; Langer, U.; Torres, V.; Buntkowsky, G.; Vieth, H.-M.; Pérez- Torralba, M.; Sanz, D.; Claramunt, R. M.; Elguero, J.; Limbach, H.-H. NMR Studies of Ultrafast Intr...

    work page 2013

  3. [22]

    I.; Rhee, J

    (121) Zhao, L.; Goings, J.; Shin, K.; Kyoung, W.; Fuks, J. I.; Rhee, J. -K. K.; Rhee, Y. M.; Wright, K.; Nguyen, J.; Kim, J.; Johri, S . Orbital-optimized pair-correlated electron simulations on trapped-ion quantum computers. npj Quantum Inf. 2023, 9,

    work page 2023

  4. [26]

    34 (2) Vignuzzi, M.; López, C. B. Defective viral genomes are key drivers of the virus–host interaction. Nat. Microbiol. 2019, 4, 1075–1087. (3) Wessner, D. R. The Origins of Viruses. Nat. Edu. 2010, 3,

    work page 2019

  5. [37]

    The Evolving Definition of the Term “Gene”, Genetics 2017, 205, 1353–1364

    (4) Portin, P.; Wilkins, A. The Evolving Definition of the Term “Gene”, Genetics 2017, 205, 1353–1364. (5) Shendure, J.; Balasubramanian, S.; Church, G. M.; Gilbert, W.; Rogers, J.; Schloss, J. A.; Waterston, R. H. DNA sequencing at 40: past, present and future. Nature 2017, 550, 345–353. (6) Tabatabaei, S. K.; Pham, B.; Pan, C.; Liu, J.; Chandak, S.; Sho...

    work page 2017

  6. [60]

    (122) Moll, N.; Barkoutsos , P.; Bishop, L. S. et al . Quantum optimization using variational algorithms on near -term quantum devices . Quantum Sci. Technol . 2018, 3 030503. (123) Dasgupta, K.; Paine, B. Loading Probability Distributions in a Quantum circuit . arXiv:2208.13372v1 [quant-ph]. (124) Vandersypen, L.; Steffen, M.; Breyta, G; Yannoni, C. S.; ...

    arXiv 2018

  7. [101]

    Hilbert -space structure of a solid -state quantum computer: Two-electron states of a double-quantum-dot artificial molecule

    (108) Hu, X.; Das Sarma, S. Hilbert -space structure of a solid -state quantum computer: Two-electron states of a double-quantum-dot artificial molecule. Phys. Rev. A 2000, 61, 062301. (109) Burkard, G.; Loss, D.; DiVincenzo, D. P. Coupled quantum dots as quantum gates. Phys. Rev. B 1999, 59,

    work page 2000

  8. [102]

    J.; Aspuru-Guzik, A.; Jeremy L

    (118) Peruzzo, A.; McClean, J.; Shadbolt, P.; Yung, M.-H.; Zhou, X.-Q.; Love, P. J.; Aspuru-Guzik, A.; Jeremy L. O’Brien, J. L. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5,

    work page 2014

Show all 30 references
  1. [109]

    The Activated Complex in Chemical Reactions

    (49) Eyring, H. The Activated Complex in Chemical Reactions. J. Chem. Phys. 1935, 3, 107–115. (50) Truhlar, D. G.; Garrett, B. C.; Klippenstein, S. J. Current Status of Transition -State Theory. J. Phys. Chem. 1996, 100, 12771–12800. (51) Slocombe, L.; Al-Khalilib, J. S.; Sacc...

    1935

  2. [144]

    Proton transfer in guanine –cytosine base pair analogues studied by NMR spectroscopy and PIMD simulations

    37 (47) Pohl, R.; Socha, O.; Slavíček, P.; Šála, M.; Hodgkinson, P.; Dračínský, M. Proton transfer in guanine –cytosine base pair analogues studied by NMR spectroscopy and PIMD simulations. Faraday Discuss. 2018, 212, 331–334. (48) Slocombe, L.; Sacchi, M.; Al-Khalili, J. An ...

    2018

  3. [180]

    Magnetic dipolar interaction between correlated triplets created by singlet fission in tetracene crystals

    (86) Wang, R.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, B.; Liu, Y.; Wang, X.; Xiao, M. Magnetic dipolar interaction between correlated triplets created by singlet fission in tetracene crystals. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6,

    2015

  4. [210]

    (113) O'Malley, P. J. J.; Babbush, R.; Kivlichan, I. D.; et al. Scalable Quantum Simulation of Molecular Energies. Phys. Rev. X 2016, 6, 031007. (114) Riera Aroche, R.; Ortiz García, Y. M.; Martínez Arellano, M. A.; Riera Leal, A . DNA as a perfect quantum computer based on th...

    2016

  5. [716]

    (105) Nguyen, V. H. Quantum dynamics of two -spin-qubit systems. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2009, 21, 273201. (106) Loss, D.; DiVincenzo, D. P. Quantum computation with quantum dots. Phys. Rev. A 1998, 57, 120–126. (107) Goss, N.; Ferracin, S.; Hashim, A.; Carignan-Dugas, A.; Kr...

    2009

  6. [732]

    (30) Kryachko, E. S. The Origin of Spontaneous Point Mutations in DNA via Löwdin Mechanism of Proton Tunneling in DNA Base Pairs: Cure with Covalent Base Pairing. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 2002, 90, 910−923. (31) Xiao, S.; Wang, L.; Liu, Y.; Lin, X.; Liang, H. Theoretical investi...

    2002

  7. [1572]

    L.; Hsiao, J

    (117) Shee, Y.; Yeh, T. L.; Hsiao, J. Y.; Yang, A.; Yen-Chu Lin, Y.-C.; Hsieh, M.-H. Quantum simulation of preferred tautomeric state prediction. npj Quantum Inf. 2023, 9,

    2023

  8. [1628]

    N.; Nguyen, B

    (19) Takahashi, C. N.; Nguyen, B. H.; Strauss, K.; Ceze, L. Demonstration of End-to-End Automation of DNA Data Storage. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9,

    2019

  9. [1653]

    A.; Aucar, G

    (103) Martínez, F. A.; Aucar, G. A.; Intermolecular magnetic interactions in stacked DNA base pairs. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2017, 19, 27817–27827. (104) Belousov, Y.; Chernousov, I.; Man’ko, V. Pseudo-Qutrit Formed by Two Interacting Identical Spins (s = 1/2) in a Variable Ex...

    2017

  10. [1789]

    V.; Arabi, A

    (58) Gheorghiu, A.; Coveney, P. V.; Arabi, A. A. The influence of external electric fields on proton transfer tautomerism in the guanine –cytosine base pair . Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2021, 23, 6252–6265. (59) Cerón-Carrasco, J. P.; Jacquemin , D. Electric -field induced mutati...

    2021

  11. [1989]

    Theoretical Studies of Proton Transfers

    (85) Scheiner, S. Theoretical Studies of Proton Transfers. Acc. Chem. Res. 1985, 18, 174–

    1985

  12. [2022]

    (111) Seeley, J

    This excellent textbook is available as a free ebook (https://www.thomaswong.net/introduction-to-classical-and-quantum-computing- 1e4p.pdf). (111) Seeley, J. T. ; Richard, M. J. ; Love, P. J . The Bravyi -Kitaev transformation for quantum computation of electronic structure. J...

    2012

  13. [3229]

    Smedarchina, Z

    (66) Gorb, L.; Podolyan, Y.; Leszczynski, J.; Siebrand, W.; Fernández-Ramos, A. ; Smedarchina, Z. A quantum -dynamics study of the prototropic tautomerism of guanine and its contribution to spontaneous point mutations in Escherichia coli. Biopolymers 2001, 61, 77–83. (67) Walu...

    2001

  14. [4213]

    S.; Lloyd, S

    (119) Abrams, D. S.; Lloyd, S. Simulation of Many-Body Fermi Systems on a Universal Quantum Computer. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1997, 79, 2586–2589. (120) Berry, D. W.; Kieferová, M.; Scherer, A.; Sanders, Y. R.; Low, G. H.; Wiebe, N.; Gidney, C.; Babbush, R . Improved techniques for p...

    1997

  15. [4487]

    A.; Mosca , M

    (102) Jones, J. A.; Mosca , M. Implementation of a quantum algorithm on a nuclear magnetic resonance quantum computer. J. Chem. Phys. 1998, 109, 1648 –

    1998

  16. [4553]

    P .; C.; Sitters, G.; Laurens, N.; Moolenaar, G

    (60) Driessen, R. P .; C.; Sitters, G.; Laurens, N.; Moolenaar, G. F.; Wuite, G. J. L.; Goosen, H.; Dame, R. Th., Effect of Temperature on the Intrinsic Flexibility of DNA and Its Interaction with Architectural Proteins. Biochemistry 2014, 53, 6430–6438. (61) Mouhat, F.; Peria...

    2014

  17. [4720]

    E.; Eaves, J

    (89) Smyser, K. E.; Eaves, J. D. Singlet fission for quantum information and quantum computing: the parallel JDE model. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 18480. (90) Yong, C.; Musser, A.; Bayliss, S.; et al. The entangled triplet pair state in acene and heteroacene materials. Nat. Commun. 2...

    2020

  18. [4998]

    Information stored in nanoscale: Encoding data in a single DNA strand with Base64

    (20) Zhang, Y.; Kong, L.; Wang, F.; Li, B.; Ma, C.; Chen, D.; Liu, K.; Fan, C.; Zhang, H. Information stored in nanoscale: Encoding data in a single DNA strand with Base64. Nano Today 2020, 33, 100871. (21) Ding, L.; Wu, S.; Hou, Z.; Li, A.; Xu, Y.; Feng, H.; Pan, W.; Ruan, J....

    2020

  19. [6930]

    38 (62) Scheiner, S.; Kern, C. W. Molecular orbital investigation of multiply hydrogen bonded systems. Formic acid dimer and DNA base pairs. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1979, 101, 4081–4085. (63) Winokan, M.; Slocombe, L.; Al‑Khalili, J.; Sacchi, M. Multiscale simulations reveal the rol...

    1979

  20. [8415]

    S.; Landig, R.; Choi, S.; Lukin, M

    (133) Choi, J.; Zhou, H.; Knowles, H. S.; Landig, R.; Choi, S.; Lukin, M. D. Robust Dynamic Hamiltonian Engineering of Many-Body Spin Systems. Phys. Rev. X 2020, 10, 031002

    2020

  21. [8602]

    (87) Nagashima, K.; Velan, S. S. Understanding the singlet and triplet states in magnetic resonance. Concepts Magn. Reson. 2013, 42 165-181. (88) Zhou, Y.; Han, S. T.; Chen, X.; Wang, F.; Tang, Y.-B.; Roy, V. A. L. An upconverted photonic nonvolatile memory. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5,

    2013

  22. [9671]

    D.; Fresco, J

    (35) Topal, M. D.; Fresco, J. R. Complementary base pairing and the origin of substitution mutations. Nature 1976, 263, 285–289. (36) Florián, J.; Leszczyńsk, J. Spontaneous DNA Mutations Induced by Proton Transfer in the Guanine·Cytosine Base Pairs: An Energetic Perspective. ...

    1976

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.