Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Bridging Classical Molecular Dynamics and Quantum Foundations for Comprehensive Protein Structural Analysis

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that molecular dynamics simulations of three neurodegeneration-linked proteins reveal stable folds and residue-level interaction energies, with electrostatic contacts dominating the APP–Alpha-synuclein pair and…

desk verdict A standard single-protein MD study whose headline pairwise interaction energies have no basis in the reported methods. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20830 v1 pith:Q6D2SA4C submitted 2025-06-25 q-bio.BM q-bio.CB

Don Roosan , Rubayat Khan , Tiffany Khou , Saif Nirzhor , Fahmida Hai , Brian Provencher This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.BMq-bio.CB
keywords moleculardynamicsproteinaggregationneurodegenerationquantumbiologyQM/MMsimulationamyloidprecursortaualpha-synuclein
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 tries to establish that three proteins central to neurodegeneration—amyloid precursor protein, Tau, and Alpha-synuclein—can be characterized by classical molecular dynamics in a way that reveals both their individual stability and their residue-level interaction preferences. Using 100 ns simulations of each protein, it claims all three converge to stable folds within 10 ns, with RMSD fluctuations below 0.25 nm. On the interaction side, it reports average pairwise energies showing electrostatic dominance in APP–Alpha-synuclein contacts, hydrophobic dominance in Tau's repeat regions, and transient salt bridges between APP's C-terminus and Alpha-synuclein's N-terminus. If these results hold, the residue-level hot spots become concrete starting points for designing molecules that disrupt pathogenic aggregation. The quantum mechanical discussion in the paper is forward-looking rather than computational: no QM calculation is reported, but the paper argues that future QM/MM refinement of the proposed interfaces could validate these classical findings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the all-atom molecular dynamics trajectory of each solvated protein, combined with an interaction-energy decomposition into electrostatic and van der Waals components. The decomposition is what converts the trajectories into the claimed residue-level contact map, and the RMSD, RMSF, secondary-structure, and solvent-accessibility analyses provide the supporting stability and flexibility profile.

What would settle it

Inspect the production-run input files: if every simulated system contains only a single protein chain, then Table 2's inter-protein energies cannot follow from the reported simulations, and recomputing the non-bonded energies from a trajectory that contains both chains would settle the matter.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core claim is that 100 ns all-atom molecular dynamics simulations of APP, Tau, and Alpha-synuclein produce stable, analysable conformations and that the pairwise interaction energies extracted from these simulations identify specific residue-level contact patterns. In particular, the paper reports that electrostatic interactions dominate APP–Alpha-synuclein contacts, that hydrophobic forces prevail in Tau's repeat regions, and that transient salt bridges form between APP's C-terminal region and Alpha-synuclein's N-terminal region, suggesting a unique complex-formation interface. It further claims that each protein reaches a stable fold within 10 ns with RMSD fluctuations remaining under 0.25 nm, that Tau shows high flexibility in proline-rich and microtubule-binding regions, and that secondary structure stays largely stable, with Alpha-synuclein gaining C-terminal beta-sheet content and Tau showing transient beta-strands. The quantum mechanical material in the paper is presented as a foundation and a future direction, not as a reported calculation.

Load-bearing premise

The claim depends on the simulation protocol producing pairwise interactions between the two proteins in each reported pair, yet the methods only describe each protein being solvated and simulated separately in its own box.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If these interaction energies are correct, drug designers can target the specific APP C-terminal and Alpha-synuclein N-terminal salt-bridge residues with small molecules aimed at disrupting complex formation.
  • Tau's flexible proline-rich and microtubule-binding regions become concrete candidate sites for stabilizing agents intended to prevent fibril formation.
  • The reported early stabilization of all three proteins supports the idea that isolated proteins are dynamically stable in this force field, so aggregation-relevant conformational changes would need to appear in longer simulations or in the presence of partners.
  • The electrostatic-versus-hydrophobic energy decomposition gives a criterion for choosing which protein pairs deserve more expensive QM/MM refinement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct, testable extension would be to co-simulate APP and Alpha-synuclein in one box and check whether the reported C-terminal/N-terminal salt bridges persist beyond the isolated-protein setup described in the methods.
  • If Table 2's pairwise energies were derived from separate single-protein simulations rather than co-simulations, the residue-level interaction claims would need an explicit complex simulation or docking calculation to remain standing.
  • The quantum foundations discussion is an agenda rather than a result; applying QM/MM only to the proposed interface residues is a concrete way to test whether the classical electrostatic dominance survives explicit electronic-structure treatment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports classical molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of three proteins implicated in neurodegeneration—Amyloid Precursor Protein (APP, PDB 1AAP), Tau (2ON9), and Alpha-synuclein (1XQ8)—using GROMACS with the Amber99sb force field. The authors claim that all three proteins reach stable conformations within 10 ns of 100 ns production runs, present RMSF and secondary-structure analyses, and report pairwise interaction energies among the proteins (Table 2). From these energies they conclude that electrostatic interactions dominate APP–Alpha-synuclein contacts, hydrophobic forces prevail in Tau repeat regions, and transient salt bridges link APP's C-terminus with Alpha-synuclein's N-terminus, suggesting a therapeutic target interface. The manuscript also introduces quantum mechanical equations (Schrödinger equation, second-quantized Hamiltonian) and frames the work as 'bridging' classical MD and quantum foundations, although the quantum formalism is not used in the simulations.

Significance. If the reported interaction energies and residue-level contacts were valid, the paper would identify specific hot spots for therapeutic intervention in protein aggregation diseases. However, the paper's distinctive contribution rests entirely on pairwise interaction energies that cannot be derived from the described simulation protocol, which consists of three separate single-protein simulations. The stability and flexibility findings (RMSD, RMSF, secondary structure) are routine outputs of standard MD runs and do not constitute a novel scientific claim. The quantum component is presented only as aspirational future work, so the title's promise is not fulfilled. The manuscript also suffers from missing figures, garbled passages, and extensive unrelated healthcare-informatics content. As a result, the paper's central claims are unsupported, and its significance as presented is low.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods §2; Table 2] The Methods section describes each protein being solvated independently in its own dodecahedron box with TIP3P water and subjected to 100 ns production runs. No co-solvation, multi-chain topology, or energy-group analysis is described. In GROMACS, pairwise interaction energies between two proteins require both molecules to be present in the same simulation box with distinct energy groups; separate single-protein simulations cannot produce the inter-protein energies listed in Table 2 (e.g., APP–Tau: -260±15 kJ/mol, APP–Alpha-synuclein: -365±24 kJ/mol, Tau–Alpha-synuclein: -260±19 kJ/mol). The electrostatic, van der Waals, and total interaction energies in Table 2 therefore have no computational basis in the reported protocol, invalidating the central claims of electrostatic dominance and hydrophobic forces in the Results and Discussion.
  2. [Results (paragraph after Fig. 2); Table 2] The claim that 'novel transient salt bridges link APP's C-terminal and Alpha-synuclein's N-terminal' is unsupported by any described analysis. The Methods do not specify a salt-bridge detection criterion (e.g., distance between charged atoms, occupancy threshold), and no distance trajectories, contact maps, or residue-pair tables are provided. Without such data, the existence of these salt bridges and the 'unique complex formation interface' cannot be verified or reproduced.
  3. [Eqs. (1)–(2), Methods §2; Title] The quantum mechanical formalism introduced in Eqs. (1) and (2) is not used anywhere in the simulation or analysis. The Methods state that 'classical MD was primary' and that QM/MM or quantum-computing methods 'could' be applied in the future, so the equations are decorative rather than load-bearing. The title 'Bridging Classical Molecular Dynamics and Quantum Foundations' overstates the paper's actual content, which contains no quantum mechanical calculations.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Results; Table 2 caption] The caption of Table 2 does not specify the averaging window for the interaction energies, even though the Methods state that trajectory analysis focused on the final 50 ns with block-averaging. It is unclear whether the reported values are averaged over the last 50 ns, the full 100 ns, or some other interval, and the block size for the uncertainty estimates is not given.
  2. [Results (paragraph after Fig. 2)] The sentence 'suggesting TikTok suggesting a unique complex formation interface' is garbled and appears to contain an editorial artifact. This should be corrected to a coherent claim if the authors intend to retain the sentence.
  3. [Eq. (1) and surrounding text] Equation (1) is typeset incorrectly: '|Ψ(t)>Ψ(t)⟩' mixes bra-ket notations, and the surrounding sentence 'In addition, the electronic structure. where ...' is incomplete and grammatically broken.
  4. [Figures 1–3] Figures 1, 2, and 3 are referenced in the text (RMSD time evolution, RMSF profiles, and secondary-structure content, respectively) but are not included in the manuscript. This makes it impossible for the reader to assess the claimed RMSD plateau within 0.25 nm, the specific flexibility patterns, or the secondary-structure changes.
  5. [References] The reference list contains duplicates: references [24] and [36] are identical (Roosan et al., 'Effectiveness of ChatGPT in clinical pharmacy...', J Am Pharm Assoc), references [13] and [31] are identical (Li et al., J Am Geriatr Soc), and references [39] and [40] are identical (Rai et al., Protein Sci). These duplicates should be removed or consolidated.
  6. [Introduction] The Introduction contains several paragraphs on unrelated healthcare informatics topics (blockchain, EHR heatmaps, mHealth, pharmacogenomics) that have no direct connection to the molecular dynamics methodology or the protein interaction results. This padding distracts from the study and should be trimmed or explicitly linked to the MD work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the reported MD results are not forced by construction, by definition, or by a load-bearing self-citation chain; the self-citations are padding, and the Table 2 protocol gap is a correctness issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: publicly available PDB structures are solvated and simulated with GROMACS/Amber99sb, and trajectory analyses produce RMSD, RMSF, secondary structure, and interaction-energy tables. No parameter is fitted to a target result, no prediction is mathematically identical to an input by construction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to forbid alternatives. The numerous self-citations in the Introduction, Methods, and Discussion concern healthcare informatics, pharmacogenomics, AI, and blockchain topics; they do not provide the load-bearing justification for any MD-derived claim, so they are irrelevant padding rather than circular support. The serious weakness in Table 2 — that interaction energies among protein pairs are reported even though Methods describes each protein simulated in its own dodecahedron box without co-solvation or an energy-group protocol — is a reproducibility and correctness concern, not a circularity concern: the numbers are not equivalent to the inputs by definition, nor are they a renamed fit. Similarly, the Schrödinger-equation and second-quantization formalism is presented as future context and is not used to derive the simulation results. The stability and interaction claims therefore fail or stand on the actual simulation content, but they do not reduce to their own premises in the circularity sense. Accordingly, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's claims rest on standard MD simulation assumptions (force-field accuracy, representative starting structures, sufficient sampling) plus one ad hoc assumption that pairwise interaction energies can be computed from the described protocol. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Analysis window for equilibrium averages = final 50 ns of 100 ns trajectories
    Methods and Results state that analysis focuses on the final 50 ns after an implied equilibration; the cutoff is chosen by hand and affects reported means and uncertainties.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Amber99sb force field with TIP3P water accurately samples the conformational ensembles of intrinsically disordered proteins over 100 ns.
    Methods cites Amber99sb as 'efficient and accurate for disordered proteins' but provides no validation, replicate runs, or force-field comparison; for IDPs, force-field choice strongly biases secondary-structure and dynamics.
  • domain assumption Single PDB entries 1AAP, 2ON9, 1XQ8 are representative starting points for the three proteins' biologically relevant states.
    Methods uses one structure per protein; Tau and Alpha-synuclein are intrinsically disordered and exist as ensembles, so a single static structure may not represent the disease-relevant conformations.
  • domain assumption 100 ns is sufficient for convergence of RMSD, RMSF, and interaction-energy estimates.
    Results claim stabilization within 10 ns without a rigorous convergence test (e.g., split-half analysis, replicate seeds, or block-size dependence); the timescale sufficiency is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper The inter-protein interaction energies in Table 2 are well-defined by the simulation protocol.
    This premise is required for the central interaction claim, but the Methods describe only separate single-protein simulations; no co-simulation or post-processing method is described, so the premise is unstated and possibly false.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bridging Classical Molecular Dynamics and Quantum Foundations for Comprehensive Protein Structural Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q6D2SA4C

@misc{pith2026250620830,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bridging Classical Molecular Dynamics and Quantum Foundations for Comprehensive Protein Structural Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q6D2SA4C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20830}
}
read the original abstract

The objective of this paper is to investigate the structural stability, dynamic properties, and potential interactions among Amyloid Precursor Protein (APP), Tau, and Alpha-synuclein through a series of molecular dynamics simulations that integrate publicly available structural data, detailed force-field parameters, and comprehensive analytical protocols. By focusing on these three proteins, which are each implicated in various neurodegenerative disorders, the study aims to elucidate how their conformational changes and interprotein contact sites may influence larger biological processes. Through rigorous evaluation of their folding behaviors, energetic interactions, and residue-specific functions, this work contributes to the broader understanding of protein aggregation mechanisms and offers insights that may ultimately guide therapeutic intervention strategies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20830 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Time Evolution of RMSD for Amyloid Precursor Protein (green), Tau (red), and Alpha-synuclein (blue) RMSF analysis provided insight into the flexibility of individual residues. Tau exhibited higher fluctuations within its proline-rich and microtubule-binding regions, aligning with known roles in microtubule regulation. Amyloid Precursor Protein (APP) demonstrated moderate fluctuations in the E2 domain, while Alpha-sy… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. RMSF Profiles of Each Protein Mapped by Residue Number Electrostatic interactions dominate APP–Alpha-synuclein contacts, while hydrophobic forces prevail in Tau’s repeat regions. Novel transient salt bridges link APP’s C-terminal and Alpha-synuclein’s N-terminal, suggesting TikTok suggesting a unique complex formation interface ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Secondary Structure Content Over the Simulation Time course All results collectively suggest that APP, Tau, and Alpha-synuclein maintain stable folds in simulations, each showing unique local dynamics and interaction patterns. Variations in flexibility, interaction energies, and secondary structure pinpoint key residues for function and complex formation, guiding studies on disease aggregation and therapeutic design… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Pharmacogenomics J

    Roosan, D., Hwang, A., Roosan, M.R.: Pharmacogenomics cascade testing (PhaCT): a novel approach for preemptive pharmacogenomics testing to optimize medication therapy. Pharmacogenomics J. 21, 1 –7 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41397-020-00182-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41397-020-00182-9 2021

  2. [2]

    Roosan, D., Wu, Y., Tran, M., Huang, Y., Baskys, A., Roosan, M.R.: Opportunities to integrate nutrigenomics into clinical practice and patient counseling. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 77, 36 –44 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-022-01146-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41430-022-01146-x 2023

  3. [3]

    Front Genet

    Sayer, M., Duche, A., Nguyen, T.J.T., Le, M., Patel, K., Vu, J., Pham, D., Vernick, B., Beuttler, R., Roosan, D., Roosan, M.R.: Clinical Implications of Combinatorial Pharmacogenomic Tests Based on Cytochrome P450 Variant Selection. Front Genet. 12, 719671 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.719671

    work page arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

    Islam, R., Weir, C.R., Jones, M., Del Fiol, G., Samore, M.H.: Understanding complex clinical reasoning in infectious diseases for improving clinical decision support design. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 15, 101 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-015-0221-z

    doi:10.1186/s12911-015-0221-z 2015

  5. [5]

    In: 2016 IEEE-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics

    Islam, R., Mayer, J., Clutter, J.: Supporting novice clinicians cognitive strategies: system design perspective. In: 2016 IEEE-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics. IEEE, Las Vegas, NV, pp. 509–512 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/BHI.2016.7455946

    work page arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Methods Inf Med

    Islam, R., Weir, C., Del Fiol, G.: Clinical complexity in medicine: a measurement model of task and patient complexity. Methods Inf Med. 55, 14–22 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3414/ME15-01-0031

    work page doi:10.3414/me15-01-0031 2016

  7. [7]

    J Biomed Inform

    Roosan, D., et al.: Identifying complexity in infectious diseases inpatient settings: an observation study. J Biomed Inform. 71, S13–S21 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2016.10.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2016.10.018 2017

  8. [8]

    In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics

    Islam, R., Weir, C., Del Fiol, G.: Heuristics in managing complex clinical decision tasks in experts’ decision making. In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics. IEEE, pp. 186–193 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICHI.2014.32

    doi:10.1109/ichi.2014.32 2014

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    ACI Open

    Roosan, D., Clutter, J., Kendall, B., Weir, C.: Power of heuristics to improve health information technology system design. ACI Open. 6, e114–e122 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1758462

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    Appl Clin Inform

    Rogith, D., et al.: Application of human factors methods to understand missed follow-up of abnormal test results. Appl Clin Inform. 11, 692–698 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1716537

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Roosan, D., Chok, J., Nersesian, T., Li, Y., Law, A., Li, Y.: Development of a dashboard analytics platform for dementia caregivers to understand diagnostic test results. (2023). https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3032181/v1

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    In: Geroimenko, V

    Roosan, D.: Integrating artificial intelligence with mixed reality to optimize health care in the metaverse. In: Geroimenko, V. (ed.) Augmented and Virtual Reality in the Metaverse. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, pp. 247–264 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57746-8_13

    2024 doi

  5. [14]

    Pharm Fac Artic Res

    Roosan, D., Karim, M., Chok, J., Roosan, M.: Operationalizing healthcare big data in the electronic health records using a heatmap visualization technique. Pharm Fac Artic Res. (2020). https://doi.org/10.5220/0008912503610368

    2020 doi

  6. [15]

    In: 2024 International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Energy Techn ologies (ICECET)

    Roosan, D., Chok, J., Li, Y., Khou, T.: Utilizing quantum computing -based large language transformer models to identify social determinants of health from electronic health records. In: 2024 International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Energy Techn ologies (ICECET). I...

    2024

  7. [16]

    J Med Toxicol

    Roosan, D., Law, A.V., Roosan, M.R., Li, Y.: Artificial intelligent context-aware machine-learning tool to detect adverse drug events from social media platforms. J Med Toxicol. 18, 311 –320 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-022-00906-2

    2022 doi

  8. [17]

    In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics

    Roosan, D., Samore, M., Jones, M., Livnat, Y., Clutter, J.: Big -data based decision-support systems to improve clinicians’ cognition. In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics. IEEE, pp. 285–288 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICHI.2016.39

    2016 doi

  9. [18]

    Yearb Med Inform

    Kohn, M.S., Sun, J., Knoop, S., Shabo, A., Carmeli, B., Sow, D., Syed-Mahmood, T., Rapp, W.: IBM’s health analytics and clinical decision support. Yearb Med Inform. 9, 154 –162 (2014). https://doi.org/10.15265/IY-2014-0002

    2014 doi

  10. [19]

    npj Digit Med

    Kim, E., Baskys, A., Law, A.V., Roosan, M.R., Li, Y., Roosan, D.: Scoping review: the empowerment of Alzheimer’s disease caregivers with mHealth applications. npj Digit Med. 4, 1 –8 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-021-00506-4

    2021 doi

  11. [20]

    J Med Syst

    Li, Y., Phan, H., Law, A.V., Baskys, A., Roosan, D.: Gamification to improve medication adherence: a mixed-method usability study for MedScrab. J Med Syst. 47, 108 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916- 023-02006-2

    2023 doi

  12. [21]

    JMIR Res Protoc

    Roosan, D., et al.: Artificial intelligence –powered smartphone app to facilitate medication adherence: protocol for a human factors design study. JMIR Res Protoc. 9, e21659 (2020). https://doi.org/10.2196/21659

    2020 doi

  13. [22]

    JMIR Res Protoc

    Roosan, D., Law, A.V., Karim, M., Roosan, M.: Improving team -based decision making using data analytics and informatics: protocol for a collaborative decision support design. JMIR Res Protoc. 8, e16047 (2019). https://doi.org/10.2196/16047

    2019 doi

  14. [23]

    In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Data Science, Technol ogy and Applications

    Roosan, D., et al.: Artificial intelligence -powered large language transformer models for opioid abuse and social determinants of health detection for the underserved population. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Data Science, Technol ogy and Application...

    2024 doi

  15. [25]

    Pharmacogenomics

    Roosan, D., Hwang, A., Law, A.V., Chok, J., Roosan, M.R.: The inclusion of health data standards in the implementation of pharmacogenomics systems: a scoping review. Pharmacogenomics. 21, 1191 –1202 (2020). https://doi.org/10.2217/pgs-2020-0066

    2020 doi

  16. [26]

    J Am Pharm Assoc

    Roosan, D., et al.: Framework to enable pharmacist access to health care data using blockchain technology and artificial intelligence. J Am Pharm Assoc. 62, 1124 –1132 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2022.02.018

    2022 doi

  17. [27]

    Health Technol

    Wu, Y., Li, Y., Baskys, A., Chok, J., Hoffman, J., Roosan, D.: Health disparity in digital health technology design. Health Technol. 14, 239–249 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-024-00814-1

    2024 doi

  18. [28]

    In: Geroimenko, V

    Roosan, D.: Augmented reality and artificial intelligence: applications in pharmacy. In: Geroimenko, V. (ed.) Augmented Reality and Artificial Intelligence: The Fusion of Advanced Technologies. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, pp. 227–243 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-...

    2023 doi

  19. [29]

    J Med Artif Intell

    Roosan, D.: Comprehensive guide and checklist for clinicians to evaluate artificial intelligence and machine learning methodological research. J Med Artif Intell. 7, (2024). https://doi.org/10.21037/jmai - 24-65

    2024 doi

  20. [30]

    Pharmacogenomics

    Roosan, D., Chok, J., Baskys, A., Roosan, M.R.: PGxKnow: a pharmacogenomics educational Hololens application of augmented reality and artificial intelligence. Pharmacogenomics. 23, 235 –245 (2022). https://doi.org/10.2217/pgs-2021-0120

    2022 doi

  21. [31]

    J Am Geriatr Soc

    Li, Y., Chok, J., Cui, G., Roosan, D., Shultz, K.: Electronic health record adoption among adult day services: findings from the national study of long-term care providers. J Am Geriatr Soc. 71, 3941–3943 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.18549

    2023 doi

  22. [32]

    Pharmacogenomics

    Roosan, D.: The promise of digital health in healthcare equity and medication adherence in the disadvantaged dementia population. Pharmacogenomics. 23, 505 –508 (2022). https://doi.org/10.2217/pgs-2022-0062

    2022 doi

  23. [33]

    BMC Genomics

    Li, Y., et al.: SARS -CoV-2 early infection signature identified potential key infection mechanisms and drug targets. BMC Genomics. 22, 125 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-021-07433-4

    2021 doi

  24. [34]

    Lindahl, E., et al.: GROMACS: A package for molecular simulation and trajectory analysis. J. Mol. Model. 7, 306–317 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/s008940100045

    2001 doi

  25. [35]

    Proteins

    Hornak, V., et al.: Comparison of multiple Amber force fields and development of improved protein backbone parameters. Proteins. 65(3), 712–725 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.21123

    2006 doi

  26. [36]

    J Am Pharm Assoc

    Roosan, D., Padua, P., Khan, R., Khan, H., Verzosa, C., Wu, Y.: Effectiveness of ChatGPT in clinical pharmacy and the role of artificial intelligence in medication therapy management. J Am Pharm Assoc. 64, 422–428.e8 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2023.11.023

    2024 doi

  27. [37]

    M., & Thiel, W.: QM/MM methods for biomolecular systems

    Senn, H. M., & Thiel, W.: QM/MM methods for biomolecular systems. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 48(7), 1198–1229 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.200802019

    2009 doi

  28. [38]

    Tóth, G., et al.: Novel small molecules targeting the intrinsically disordered structural ensemble of α - synuclein protect against diverse α -synuclein mediated dysfunctions. Sci. Rep. 9, 16947 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-52598-4

    2019 doi

  29. [40]

    K., Savastano, A., Singh, P., Mukhopadhyay, S., Zweckstetter, M.: Liquid–liquid phase separation of tau: from molecular biophysics to physiology and disease

    Rai, S. K., Savastano, A., Singh, P., Mukhopadhyay, S., Zweckstetter, M.: Liquid–liquid phase separation of tau: from molecular biophysics to physiology and disease. Protein Sci. 30, 1294 –1314 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.4093

    2021 doi

  30. [41]

    Li, X., et al.: β -synuclein regulates the phase transitions and amyloid conversion of α -synuclein. Nat. Commun. 15, 8748 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-53086-8

    2024 doi

  31. [42]

    L., Sunde, M., Shen, Y.: From fundamental amyloid protein self - assembly to development of bioplastics

    Li, T., Kambanis, J., Sorenson, T. L., Sunde, M., Shen, Y.: From fundamental amyloid protein self - assembly to development of bioplastics. Biomacromolecules. 25, 5 –23 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.3c01129

    2023 doi

  32. [43]

    Bai, Y., Zhang, S., Dong, H., Liu, Y., Liu, C., Zhang, X.: Advanced techniques for detecting protein misfolding and aggregation in cellular environments. Chem. Rev. 123, 12254 –12311 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.3c00494

    2023 doi

  33. [44]

    Li, H., Ma, A.: Enhanced sampling of protein conformational changes via true reaction coordinates from energy relaxation. Nat. Commun. 16, 786 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-55983-y

    2025 doi

  34. [45]

    Doga, H., et al.: A perspective on protein structure prediction using quantum computers. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 20, 3359–3378 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.4c00067

    2024 doi

  35. [46]

    G., Birchall, K., Yao, Z., Large, J

    Kuemper, S., Cairns, A. G., Birchall, K., Yao, Z., Large, J. M.: Targeted protein degradation in CNS disorders: a promising route to novel therapeutics? Front. Mol. Neurosci. 17, 1370509 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnmol.2024.1370509

    2024

  36. [47]

    Fan, X., et al.: Mechanism exploration of amyloid-β-42 disaggregation by single-chain variable fragments of Alzheimer’s disease therapeutic antibodies. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 24, 8371 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24098371

    2023 doi

  37. [48]

    Ghosh, D., Biswas, A., Radhakrishna, M.: Advanced computational approaches to understand protein aggregation. Biophys. Rev. 5, 021302 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0180691

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.