Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Electrodynamic forces driving DNA-protein interactions at large distances

T0 review · 3 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 A second-quantized electron–phonon model predicts a sharp, sequence-specific terahertz co-resonance between EcoRI and its DNA target, lost when the recognition sequence is randomized.

desk verdict A reproducible but conditional computational demonstration that sequence-specific co-resonance in DNA–EcoRI electron currents depends entirely on the empirical EIIP lookup table, whose biological validity is never independently tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12127 v1 pith:R32PRCJF submitted 2024-12-05 physics.bio-ph cond-mat.softq-bio.BM

E.Faraji , P.Kurian , R.Franzosi , S.Mancini , E.Floriani , V.Calandrini , G.Pettini , M.Pettini This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-phcond-mat.softq-bio.BM
keywords electrodynamicinteractionsDNA–proteinrecognitionEcoRIrestrictionenzymeelectron–phononcouplingDavydovmodelHolstein–Fröhlichterahertzco-resonanceelectroncurrentspectra
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 argues that selective DNA–protein recognition can be mediated by long-range electrodynamic forces, and it proposes a concrete dynamical mechanism: resonant electron currents. Using a second-quantized Hamiltonian of Davydov and Holstein-Fröhlich type, the authors derive electron–phonon dynamics for a DNA fragment and the EcoRI restriction enzyme, then compute the Fourier spectra of the electron currents on each molecule. The cross-spectrum shows a sharp co-resonance peak when the DNA contains EcoRI's cognate recognition sequence, while randomized or mutated sites replace the peak with a broad, noisy spectrum. Single-base changes degrade the peak progressively, and enzyme mutations known to relax or impair specificity behave accordingly. If correct, the model gives a sequence-specific, testable terahertz signature of DNA–protein recognition at a distance.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a one-dimensional, second-quantized electron–phonon Hamiltonian $\hat{H} = \hat{H}_{\mathrm{el}} + \hat{H}_{\mathrm{ph}} + \hat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}$, with site-dependent tunnelling amplitudes $J_n$ and electron–phonon couplings $\chi_n$. $J_n$ is computed as $E_0$ times a transmission coefficient across square barriers whose heights are the Electron–Ion Interaction Potential (EIIP) values of the nucleotide or amino acid at the next site, and $\chi_n$ is set to $(E_{n+1} - E_n)/a$. A Davydov ansatz plus the time-dependent variational principle turns the operator equations into coupled classical-like equations for electronic amplitudes $C_n(t)$ and lattice displacements $\beta_n(t)$; integrating these equations at room temperature yields the electron current along each chain. The central object is the cross Fourier spectrum $\tilde{i}_1^*(\nu)\tilde{i}_2(\nu)$ of the DNA and enzyme currents, whose sharp peak for the cognate sequence is the predicted selectivity signature.

What would settle it

Run the same simulation with the EIIP values randomly permuted among the four nucleotides or among the twenty amino acids while keeping the sequences fixed: if a sharp co-resonance peak survives the permutation, the peak is an artifact of the parameterization rather than of the sequence. On the experimental side, terahertz time-domain spectroscopy on hydrated EcoRI–DNA mixtures should show a narrow sequence-specific resonance near 20–29 THz for the cognate site that disappears for a randomized site; its absence would refute the predicted co-resonance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the electron currents flowing along a DNA oligonucleotide and along the EcoRI enzyme, obtained from a site-dependent electron–phonon Hamiltonian, have strongly correlated time-domain Fourier spectra only when the DNA carries EcoRI's recognition sequence. The cross-correlation spectrum of the two currents exhibits a sharp co-resonance peak around 20 THz under one parameter set and around 29 THz under another, and this peak is replaced by a broad and noisy spectrum when the recognition sequence is randomized, when individual bases are exchanged with their complements, or when specificity-destroying mutations are introduced. The same calculation preserves the sharp peak for 'promiscuous' EcoRI mutants that retain relaxed binding. The authors propose this sequence-dependent co-resonance as evidence for selective electrodynamic interactions between DNA and proteins, complementing diffusive search mechanisms.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the published electron–ion interaction energy values used for nucleotides and amino acids remain valid for hydrated molecules inside cells, because every sequence-dependent term in the model is built from those numbers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The cognate palindromic site yields a sharp cross-spectrum peak near 20 THz for one parameter set and near 29 THz for another, while randomized sites give broad, noisy spectra.
  • Single-base substitutions already broaden or reduce the peak, and double substitutions broaden it further, so the co-resonance is sequence-specific at single-base resolution.
  • Promiscuous EcoRI mutants that bind noncognate sites still show a sharp co-resonance peak, whereas a catalytically impaired mutant shows a sizeable decrease, matching experimental specificity data.
  • If the co-resonance operates in vivo, it provides a physical mechanism for long-range electrodynamic recognition that could accelerate encounters beyond Brownian diffusion.
  • The mechanism may generalize: any DNA-binding protein with a defined recognition sequence could exhibit a corresponding co-resonance with its target.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: The peak position is not a fixed molecular constant: it shifts from about 20 THz to about 29 THz when spring constants and excitation energies change, so the model predicts that solvent conditions and hydration should tune the resonance frequency for a given sequence pair.
  • Inference: The same parameterization could be run for other restriction enzymes and transcription factors; a co-resonance at their cognate sites would support a general electrodynamic recognition mechanism, while failure would limit the mechanism to EcoRI-like systems.
  • Inference: Because all sequence dependence enters through the EIIP tables, permuting those values while keeping the sequences fixed is a numerical control the paper does not perform; without it, the sharp peak cannot be cleanly separated from the parameterization.
  • Inference: The direct current–current coupling uses a single electron and does not estimate force magnitudes; the paper's own water-mediated picture suggests the biologically relevant channel may be collective water polarization rather than direct electron-current attraction.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a second-quantized Davydov/Holstein-Fr"ohlich model of electron transport along DNA and protein chains, with site-dependent tunneling and electron-phonon couplings derived from the EIIP tables of Refs. [31,32]. The authors numerically integrate the resulting TDVP equations of motion for a 66-nucleotide DNA fragment containing the EcoRI recognition site and for the 276-amino-acid EcoRI enzyme, compute the electron currents, and form their cross-frequency spectrum. They report a sharp co-resonance peak near 20-29 THz for the cognate CTTAAG sequence, which broadens or disappears for randomized and mutated recognition sequences, and they compare this with the RRM peak. Appendix A reports that single-point mutations in EcoRI that experimentally relax specificity retain the peak, whereas a mutation that reduces catalytic activity suppresses it. The paper closes with a speculative discussion of water-mediated and radiative mechanisms for long-range electrodynamic interactions.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would provide a concrete, mechanistically explicit route from DNA/protein sequence to a sequence-specific terahertz resonance that could mediate long-range recognition, complementing the authors' earlier experimental work. The manuscript has real strengths: the equations of motion follow from a standard variational treatment, the numerical integration conserves energy to high accuracy, the Matlab scripts are deposited on Zenodo, and the Appendix A mutation tests are checked against independent experimental reports [46,47] that were not used to set the model parameters. However, the sequence-dependent physics enters entirely through the EIIP tables, and the reported spectra appear to be single thermal realizations. The significance of the paper is therefore conditional on demonstrating that the co-resonance is robust to EIIP uncertainty and to thermal initial-condition sampling.

major comments (3)
  1. [III (Tables I-II) and Eqs. (15)-(16)] The sequence-dependent content of the model is entirely supplied by the EIIP values in Tables I and II. The manuscript borrows these values from Refs. [31,32] but gives no argument that these pseudopotential values, originally derived for isolated atoms, remain valid for nucleotides and amino acids in hydrated, flexible biomolecules at physiological pH and ionic strength. Since J_n and chi_n are computed directly from E_n through Eqs. (15)-(16), any environmental or methodological dependence of the EIIP values propagates into the electron currents and hence into the co-resonance peak, which is the central claim. The agreement with the RRM peak in Figure 2(a) cannot resolve this concern, because RRM uses the same EIIP tables. I would like to see either a comparison with ab initio site energies or experimental electron-affinity/ionization data, or a sensitivity analysis in which the EIIP values are perturbed within a chemically plausible range and the survival of the co-resonance is quantified.
  2. [IV (Eq. (28) and Figs. 2-5)] The phonon initial conditions are drawn from zero-mean random values with the amplitudes of Eq. (28), but the reported spectra appear to correspond to a single realization. With no ensemble averaging or error bars, the sharpness of the co-resonance peak and its disappearance upon mutation could be a fluctuation of the thermal initial conditions. This concern is reinforced by the observation that the peak position shifts from about 20 THz in Figure 2(a) to about 29 THz in Figure 4(a) under different parameter sets; the manuscript does not report how many initial conditions were sampled or how stable the peak position and amplitude are. I request ensemble averaging over the random phonon initial conditions, with the mean spectrum and confidence intervals reported for the cognate and mutant cases.
  3. [IV and Ref. [34]] The claim of 'very good quantitative agreement' with the RRM peak [34] is not an independent check, because RRM is based on the same EIIP values (Refs. [24,25,32]) that generate the co-resonance in this paper. The quantitative comparison therefore largely shows that the present spectra inherit the RRM frequency content through the input tables. The phrase should be tempered, and the independent support for sequence sensitivity should rest primarily on the Appendix A mutation tests, which do provide a genuine comparison with experimental specificity data and should be presented as the main external validation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [I (Introduction, p. 3-4)] The sentence 'This is in line with the attempt to understand whether intermolecular electrodynamic interactions are implicated...' appears twice, verbatim, in the introduction; one occurrence should be deleted.
  2. [Eqs. (24)-(25)] The text defining P_n has a typographical error: it reads 'Pn[b(t), q(t), p(t)' without a closing parenthesis, and Eq. (25) uses Pn with four arguments while the earlier definition has three; please harmonize the notation.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The caption mixes dimensionless and dimensional parameters with inconsistent notation (e.g., Omega'_{1,n} versus Omega_{1,n}); please define every symbol once and use the same notation throughout.
  4. [IV (Figs. 2-5)] The y-axis scale and normalization of the cross-spectra are not defined, which makes it difficult for the reader to judge the sharpness or broadness of the peaks across panels; please specify how the cross-spectrum is normalized.
  5. [References [22] and [38]] References [22] and [38] are described as 'in peer review' and 'in submission'; please update their publication status or remove the status notes if they are no longer accurate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the co-resonance is a dynamical output, not a restatement of the EIIP input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is self-contained: the model Hamiltonian (Eqs. 1-4) is a standard Davydov/Holstein-Fröhlich-type operator, the equations of motion (Eqs. 14, 18) are obtained by TDVP, and the sequence-dependent parameters J_n and χ_n are computed from external EIIP tables (Refs. 31,32) via Eqs. 15-16 and χ_n=(E_{n+1}-E_n)/a. The central co-resonance peak is the cross-spectrum of numerically integrated electron currents (Eq. 29), a nonlinear dynamical quantity that is not, by construction, equal to the RRM product of Fourier transforms of EIIP sequences. The sharp-peak-for-cognate/broad-for-random behavior is therefore an emergent output of the simulation, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Appendix A provides external anchors: the promiscuous and catalytically impaired EcoRI mutants are checked against experimental reports (Refs. 46,47) that were not used to set model constants. The only validation caveat is that the quantitative comparison with the RRM peak (Ref. 34) is not independent, since RRM and this model both draw sequence-dependent content from the same EIIP tables; but shared input is not the same as a circular derivation, and the mutation tests provide separate external grounding. No load-bearing self-citation chain or uniqueness argument is used. Hence no circularity.

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

The model rests on five hand-chosen numerical parameters and on the transferability of EIIP values from the Resonant Recognition Model. No new physical entities are introduced. The weakest link is the EIIP input, because all sequence specificity in the dynamics flows from those numbers.

free parameters (5)
  • E0 (initial electron energy) = 0.72 eV and 0.85 eV
    Hand-chosen initial excitation energy; the co-resonance peak frequency shifts from about 20 THz to 29 THz depending on this value (Section IV, Figures 2 and 4).
  • epsilon (nonlinear electron-substrate coupling) = 0.0329 eV (epsilon' = 5)
    Chosen ad hoc to define the nonlinear term in Eq. (2); no derivation or fit is provided.
  • mu (phonon-phonon coupling) = 0.5 (mu' = 0.5)
    Chosen ad hoc in the quartic phonon term of Eq. (3); no justification is given.
  • sigma0 (initial wavepacket width) = 0.1 (dimensionless)
    Defines the initial electron amplitude distribution in Eq. (27); set by hand.
  • omega (frequency scale) = 10^13 s^-1
    Used to rescale time and parameters in Eq. (19); chosen as a typical phonon frequency.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Davydov ansatz factorization |psi(t)> = |Psi(t)>|Phi(t)> (Eq. 5) with a single electronic excitation and a coherent phonon state is valid for DNA and EcoRI at 310 K.
    This strong approximation neglects multi-electron effects and thermal decoherence; it is standard in Davydov soliton models (ref [27]) but is not justified for the biomolecular systems here.
  • ad hoc to paper EIIP values from Refs [31,32] represent the electron-ion interaction energies for each nucleotide and amino acid in the biological context.
    All site-dependent hopping J_n and coupling chi_n are derived from these values (Eqs. 15-16, chi_n = (E_{n+1} - E_n)/a). If EIIP is not physically meaningful for hydrated DNA/protein, the co-resonance is an artifact of the chosen sequence encoding.
  • standard math The transmission coefficient formulas (Eqs. 15-16) correctly model electron tunneling between neighboring sites with square barriers of width a.
    Standard quantum mechanical tunneling result, but applied here to a coarse-grained chain with average spacing a.
  • domain assumption The phonon subsystem can be initialized as a thermalized classical oscillator bath at 310 K with zero-mean random displacements and velocities (Eq. 28).
    Assumes classical equipartition and neglects quantum phonon effects; the random initial conditions are not ensemble-averaged in the reported spectra.
  • domain assumption Periodic boundary conditions are appropriate for the finite DNA fragment and enzyme chain.
    Used for both electron and phonon parts; the effect of this choice on the computed cross-spectra is not tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electrodynamic forces driving DNA-protein interactions at large distances." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R32PRCJF

@misc{pith2026241212127,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electrodynamic forces driving DNA-protein interactions at large distances},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R32PRCJF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12127}
}
read the original abstract

In the present paper we address the general problem of selective electrodynamic interactions between DNA and protein, which is motivated by decades of theoretical study and our very recent experimental findings (M. Lechelon et al, \textit{Sci Adv} \textbf{8,} eabl5855 (2022)). Inspired by the Davydov and Holstein-Fr\"{o}hlich models describing electron motion along biomolecules, and using a model Hamiltonian written in second quantization, the time-dependent variational principle (TDVP) is used to derive the dynamical equations of the system. We demonstrate the efficacy of this {second-quantized} model for a well-documented biochemical system consisting of a restriction enzyme, \textit{Eco}RI, which binds selectively to a palindromic six-base-pair target within a DNA oligonucleotide sequence to catalyze a DNA double-strand cleavage. The time-domain Fourier spectra of the electron currents numerically computed for the DNA fragment and for the \textit{Eco}RI enzyme, respectively, exhibit a cross-correlation spectrum with a sharp co-resonance peak. When the target DNA recognition sequence is randomized, this sharp co-resonance peak is replaced with a broad and noisy spectrum. Such a sequence-dependent charge transfer phenomenology is suggestive of a potentially rich variety of selective electrodynamic interactions influencing the coordinated activity of DNA substrates, enzymes, transcription factors, ligands, and other proteins under realistic biochemical conditions characterized by electron-phonon excitations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12127 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: DNA sequence of an oligonucleotide (66 base pairs) containing a target cleavage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The cross frequency spectrum of the interaction between DNA strand with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The cross frequency spectrum of the interaction between DNA and the EcoRI enzyme [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The cross frequency spectrum of the interaction between DNA strand with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The cross frequency spectrum of the interaction between DNA and the EcoRI enzyme [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Aromatic network in EcoRI-DNA complex. Tryptophan (blue), tyrosine (purple), and phenylalanine (green) form correlated electronic dispersion networks in EcoRI, shown here in the top panel bound to its double-stranded DNA substrate, with adenine-thymine (yellow) and cyt…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cross frequency spectra between the original substrate and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Cruzeiro, J

    L. Cruzeiro, J. Halding, P. L. Christiansen, O. Skovgaard, A. C. Scott, (1988). Temperature effects on the Davydov soliton , Phys. Rev. A, 37, 880 (1988)

    work page 1988

  2. [1]

    limit cycle

    for different initial activation energies of electron E0, various initial excitation sites n0 of the electron in the probability amplitude (27), and distinct forms of the phononic spring term Ωn. We study the Fourier spectrum of the electron current activated on a segment of DNA and also DNA-interacting enzyme, and, from now on, we use the index 1 and 2 f...

    work page

  3. [2]

    M. Gori, I. Donato, E. Floriani, I. Nardecchia, and M. Pettini, Random walk of passive tracers among randomly moving obstacles , Theor. Biol. and Med. Modelling 13, 13 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [3]

    S. F. Banani, H. O. Lee, A. A. Hyman, M. K. Rosen, Biomolecular condensates: Organizers of cellular biochemistry , Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 18, 285 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [4]

    Berry, C

    J. Berry, C. P. Brangwynne, M. Haataja, Physical principles of intracellular organization via active and passive phase transitions , Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 046601 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [5]

    L. J. Sweetlove, A. R. Fernie, The role of dynamic enzyme assemblies and substrate channelling in metabolic regulation, Nat. Commun.9, 2136 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [6]

    O. I. Kulaeva, E. V. Nizovtseva, Y. S. Polikanov, S. V. Ulianov, V. M. Studitsky, Distant activation of transcription: Mechanisms of enhancer action , Mol. Cell. Biol. 32, 4892 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [7]

    J. Wang, X. Meng, H. Chen, C. Yuan, X. Li, Y. Zhou, M. Chen, Exploring the mechanisms of genome-wide long-range interactions: Interpreting chromosome organization , Brief. Funct. Genomics 15, 385 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 48 references
  1. [8]

    Atanassov, M

    Barton, P. Atanassov, M. Sigman, Substrate channelling as an approach to cascade reactions , Nat. Chem. 8, 299 (2016)

    2016

  2. [9]

    Richmond, B

    P. Richmond, B. Davies, and B.W. Ninham, Van der Waals attraction between conducting molecules, Phys. Lett. A 39, 301 (1972)

    1972

  3. [10]

    Richmond, and B

    P. Richmond, and B. Davies, Many body forces between long conducting molecules , Molecular Physics, 24, 1165 (1972)

    1972

  4. [11]

    Davies, B

    B. Davies, B. W. Ninham, and P. Richmond, Van der Waals forces between thin cylinders: New features due to conduction processes , J. Chem. Phys. 58, 744 (1973)

    1973

  5. [12]

    Bostr¨ om, J.J

    M. Bostr¨ om, J.J. Longdell, D.J. Mitchell, and B.W. Ninham, Resonance interaction between one excited and one ground state atom , Eur. Phys. J. D 22, 47 (2003)

    2003

  6. [13]

    Lo Nostro, and B

    P. Lo Nostro, and B. W. Ninham, Hofmeister Phenomena: An Update on Ion Specificity in Biology, Chem. Rev. 112, 2286 (2012)

    2012

  7. [14]

    Fr¨ ohlich,Long Range Coherence and Energy Storage in Biological Systems, Int

    H. Fr¨ ohlich,Long Range Coherence and Energy Storage in Biological Systems, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 2, 641 (1968)

    1968

  8. [15]

    Fr¨ ohlich,The Extraordinary Dielectric Properties of Biological Materials and the Action of Enzymes, Proc

    H. Fr¨ ohlich,The Extraordinary Dielectric Properties of Biological Materials and the Action of Enzymes, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 72, 4211 (1975). 25

    1975

  9. [16]

    Fr¨ ohlich, Long-range Coherence in Biological Systems , Rivista Nuovo Cimento 7, 399 (1977)

    H. Fr¨ ohlich, Long-range Coherence in Biological Systems , Rivista Nuovo Cimento 7, 399 (1977)

    1977

  10. [17]

    Fr¨ ohlich,Evidence for Coherent Excitation in Biological Systems , Int

    H. Fr¨ ohlich,Evidence for Coherent Excitation in Biological Systems , Int. J. Quantum Chem. 23, 1590 (1983)

    1983

  11. [18]

    Preto, M

    J. Preto, M. Pettini and J. Tuszynski, On the role of electrodynamic interactions in long- distance biomolecular recognition, Phys. Rev E 91, 052710 (2015)

    2015

  12. [19]

    Nardecchia, M

    I. Nardecchia, M. Lechelon, M. Gori, I. Donato, E. Floriani, S. Jaeger, S. Mailfert, D. Mar- guet, P. Ferrier, and M. Pettini, Detection of long-distance electrostatic interactions between biomolecules by means of Fluorescence Correlation Spectroscopy , Phys. Rev. E 96, 022403 (2017)

    2017

  13. [20]

    Nardecchia, L

    I. Nardecchia, L. Spinelli, J. Preto, M. Gori, E. Floriani, S. Jaeger, P. Ferrier, and M. Pet- tini, Experimental detection of long-distance interactions between biomolecules through their diffusion behavior: Numerical study , Phys. Rev. E 90, 022703 (2014)

    2014

  14. [21]

    Nardecchia, J

    I. Nardecchia, J. Torres, M. Lechelon, V. Giliberti, M. Ortolani, Ph. Nouvel, M. Gori, Y. Meriguet, I. Donato, J. Preto, L. Varani, J. Sturgis, and M. Pettini, Out-of-equilibrium col- lective oscillation as phonon condensation in a model protein , Phys. Rev. X 8, 031061 (2018)

    2018

  15. [22]

    Lechelon, Y

    M. Lechelon, Y. Meriguet, M. Gori, I. Nardecchia, E. Floriani, S. Ruffenach, D. Coquillat, F. Teppe, S. Mailfert, D. Marguet, P. Ferrier, L. Varani, J. Sturgis, J. Torres, and M. Pettini, Experimental evidence for long-distance electrodynamic intermolecular forces , Sci. Adv. ...

    2022 doi

  16. [23]

    Azizi, M

    K. Azizi, M. Gori, U. Morzan, A. Hassanali, and P. Kurian, Examining the origins of ob- served terahertz modes from an optically pumped atomistic model protein in aqueous solution , arXiv:2210.14912, 26 Oct 2022. In peer review (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Kurian, A

    P. Kurian, A. Capolupo, T. J.A. Craddock, G. Vitiello, Water-Mediated Correlations in DNA- Enzyme Interactions, Physics Letters A 382, 33 (2018)

    2018

  18. [25]

    Cosic, Macromolecular Bioactivity: Is It Resonant Interaction Between Macromolecules? - Theory and Applications , IEEE Transact

    I. Cosic, Macromolecular Bioactivity: Is It Resonant Interaction Between Macromolecules? - Theory and Applications , IEEE Transact. on Biomed. Engineering 41,1101 (1994)

    1994

  19. [26]

    Veljkovic, I

    V. Veljkovic, I. Cosic, B. Dimitrijevic, D. Lalovic, Is It Possible to Analyze DNA and Protein Sequences by the Methods of Digital Signal Processing? , IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., BME-32, 337-341 (1985). 26

    1985

  20. [27]

    Faraji, R

    E. Faraji, R. Franzosi, S. Mancini, and M. Pettini, Transition between Random and Periodic Electron Currents on a DNA Chain , Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22, 7361 (2021)

    2021

  21. [28]

    Scott, Davydov’s soliton , Physics Reports 217, 1 - 67 (1992)

    A. Scott, Davydov’s soliton , Physics Reports 217, 1 - 67 (1992)

    1992

  22. [29]

    Fr¨ ohlich,Electrons in lattice fields , Adv

    H. Fr¨ ohlich,Electrons in lattice fields , Adv. Phys. 3, 325 - 361 (1954)

    1954

  23. [30]

    Holstein, Studies of polaron motion: Part I

    T. Holstein, Studies of polaron motion: Part I. The molecular-crystal model , Ann. Phys. (USA) 8, 343 - 389 (1959)

    1959

  24. [31]

    Faraji, R

    E. Faraji, R. Franzosi, S. Mancini, M. Pettini, Energy transfer to the phonons of a macro- molecule through light pumping , Sci. Rep. 11, 6591 (2021)

    2021

  25. [32]

    Veljkovic and I

    V. Veljkovic and I. Slavic, General model of pseudopotentials , Phys. Rev. Lett. 29,105 - 108 (1972)

    1972

  26. [33]

    Cosic, Macromolecular Bioactivity: Is It Resonant Interaction Between Macromolecules? - Theory and Applications , IEEE Transact

    I. Cosic, Macromolecular Bioactivity: Is It Resonant Interaction Between Macromolecules? - Theory and Applications , IEEE Transact. on Biomed. Engineering 41,1101 (1994); I. Cosic, The Resonant Recognition Model of Macromolecular Bioactivity: Theory and Applications , Birkhaus...

    1994

  27. [35]

    Cosic and D

    I. Cosic and D. Cosic, DNA-Protein Interactions at Distance Explained by the Resonant Recog- nition Model, International Journal of Sciences 13, 1 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    M. B. Hakim, S. M. Lindsay, and J. Powell, The speed of sound in DNA, Biopolymers: Original Research on Biomolecules, 23, 1185 (1984)

    1984

  29. [37]

    Kurian, G

    P. Kurian, G. Dunston, J. Lindesay, How Quantum Entanglement in DNA Synchronizes Double-Strand Breakage by Type II Restriction Endonucleases , Journal of Theoretical Biol- ogy 391, 102-112 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Hermann, D

    J. Hermann, D. Alf´ e, A. Tkatchenko, Nanoscale π − π Stacked Molecules Are Bound by Collective Charge Fluctuations , Nature Communications 8, 14052 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    M. Gori, P. Kurian, and A. Tkatchenko, Second quantization approach to many-body dispersion interactions. In submission with Physical Review Letters (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Kurian, Chirality-Energy Conversion Induced by Static Magnetic Effects on Free Electrons in Quantum Field Theory , Journal of Physics Communications 2 , 111002 (2018)

    P. Kurian, Chirality-Energy Conversion Induced by Static Magnetic Effects on Free Electrons in Quantum Field Theory , Journal of Physics Communications 2 , 111002 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    St¨ ohr, A

    M. St¨ ohr, A. Tkatchenko, Quantum Mechanics of Proteins in Explicit Water: The Role of Plasmon-like Solute-Solvent Interactions , Science Advances 5, (2019) eaax0024. 27

    2019

  34. [42]

    Kurian, From Micro to Macro: A Relativistic Treatment of the Chiral Energy Shifts Caused by Static Electromagnetic Effects on Free Electrons , Entropy 24, 358 (2022)

    P. Kurian, From Micro to Macro: A Relativistic Treatment of the Chiral Energy Shifts Caused by Static Electromagnetic Effects on Free Electrons , Entropy 24, 358 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Gerry and P.L

    C.C. Gerry and P.L. Knight, Introductory Quantum Optics, Cambridge UP (2005)

    2005

  36. [44]

    Tavis, F.W

    M. Tavis, F.W. Cummings, Exact Solution for an N -Molecule–Radiation-Field Hamiltonian , Phys. Rev. 170, 379-384 (1968)

    1968

  37. [45]

    M. L. McDermott, H. Vanselous, S. A.Corcelli, P. B. Petersen, DNA’s Chiral Spine of Hydra- tion, ACS Central Science 3, 708-714 (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    Buchanan, The long reach of dipoles , Nature Phys

    M. Buchanan, The long reach of dipoles , Nature Phys. 18, 366 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Sapienza, C.A

    P.J. Sapienza, C.A. dela Torre, W.H. McCoy, S.V. Jana and L. Jen-Jacobson, Thermodynamic and kinetic basis for the relaxed DNA sequence specificity of ”promiscuous” mutant EcoRI endonucleases, Journal of Molecular Biology, 348, 307-324 (2005)

    2005

  40. [48]

    Grabowski, A

    G. Grabowski, A. Jeltsch, H. Wolfes, G. Maass and J. Alves, Site-directed mutagenesis in the catalytic center of the restriction endonuclease EcoRI , Gene, 157, 113-118 (1995). 28

    1995

Pith tools

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