pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.26086 · v2 · pith:S36F2K7Xnew · submitted 2026-04-28 · ⚛️ physics.bio-ph · physics.comp-ph

Orientation-Dependent Protein Binding at Nanoparticle Interfaces

Vigneshwari Karunakaran Annapoorani , Ian Rouse , Vladimir Lobaskin , Nicolae-Viorel Buchete This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 17:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.bio-ph physics.comp-ph
keywords protein-nanoparticle interactionsmolecular dockingunited-atom modelsorientation heatmapsJensen-Shannon divergencesilica nanoparticlesprotein adsorptionallergen proteins
0
0 comments X

The pith

Docking and united-atom models match protein orientations at nanoparticle surfaces

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

This paper combines coarse-grained united-atom models with molecular docking to characterize how proteins adsorb onto SiO2 nanoparticles in different orientations. They build heatmaps of binding propensity using polar and azimuthal angles for eight birch pollen allergen proteins and compare the distributions from the two methods using Jensen-Shannon divergence. Encouraging agreement is found in several cases, with suggestions for improving the approach such as better angular resolution. This creates a link between different ways of modeling protein-nanoparticle interfaces, which is useful for nanobiotechnology and drug delivery applications.

Core claim

The central claim is that orientation-resolved heatmaps from minimum UA adsorption energies and docking scores show encouraging agreement for several proteins as measured by Jensen-Shannon divergence, providing a quantitative bridge between coarse-grained energetics and docking outputs at protein-nanoparticle interfaces.

What carries the argument

Orientation-resolved heatmaps specifying relative protein-nanoparticle pose by polar and azimuthal angles with amplitude as binding propensity from minimum adsorption energy or docking score, compared using Jensen-Shannon divergence.

If this is right

  • This enables systematic comparison of binding geometries across models.
  • It supports improved predictive modeling of protein adsorption.
  • It offers mechanistic insight into binding landscapes.
  • It identifies limitations like the need for optimized angular resolution and iterative refinement of parameters.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This framework could be tested on other nanoparticle types to see if the agreement holds.
  • Integrating with experimental orientation data would provide a direct test of the model's accuracy.
  • The approach may help in designing nanoparticles that bind proteins in specific orientations for therapeutic purposes.

Load-bearing premise

The minimum UA adsorption energy or docking score in each angular bin accurately reports binding propensity and Jensen-Shannon divergence reliably indicates the relation to Boltzmann-averaged energetics.

What would settle it

An experimental determination of the preferred orientations of one of the studied proteins when bound to SiO2 nanoparticles that can be directly compared to the computed distributions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.26086 by Ian Rouse, Nicolae-Viorel Buchete, Vigneshwari Karunakaran Annapoorani, Vladimir Lobaskin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Protein structures analyzed in this study. Eight birch pollen–related proteins are view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Definition of protein–nanomaterial orientation. (A) A protein-fixed spherical coor view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Docking-derived protein–nanoparticle interaction (PNI) map for view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of docking-based and UAM PNI maps. For the eight birch pollen view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of docking and UAM adsorption landscapes. For the eight proteins (see view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Docking and UAM PNI maps for lysozyme – SiO view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Accurate quantification of protein-nanoparticle interactions is essential for applications in nanobiotechnology, nanomedicine, and drug delivery. Motivated by recent computational and experimental work, we combine coarse-grained united-atom (UA) models with molecular docking to characterize protein adsorption on SiO_2 nanoparticles. We construct orientation-resolved heatmaps in which polar and azimuthal angles uniquely specify the relative protein-nanoparticle pose, and the map amplitude reports binding propensity via the minimum UA adsorption energy or the docking score. Each angular bin corresponds to a distinct docked complex, enabling systematic comparison of binding geometries across models. To relate docking score landscapes to Boltzmann-averaged UA adsorption energetics, we analyze eight birch pollen allergen proteins previously studied experimentally. Similarity between the two orientational distributions is quantified using the Jensen-Shannon divergence (JSD). We find encouraging agreement between the two approaches in several cases, while also identifying limitations and routes for improvement, including optimized angular resolution and iterative refinement of interaction parameters. Overall, this framework provides a quantitative bridge between coarse-grained energetics and docking outputs at protein-nanoparticle interfaces, supporting improved predictive modeling and mechanistic insight into protein-nanoparticle binding landscapes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a framework combining coarse-grained united-atom (UA) models with molecular docking to generate orientation-resolved heatmaps of protein adsorption on SiO2 nanoparticles. For eight birch pollen allergen proteins, polar and azimuthal angles define poses, with bin amplitudes given by the minimum UA adsorption energy or docking score; Jensen-Shannon divergence (JSD) then quantifies similarity between the resulting orientational distributions, with the abstract reporting encouraging agreement in several cases and noting routes for improvement such as optimized angular resolution and iterative parameter refinement.

Significance. If the reported agreement survives proper thermal averaging, the work would supply a practical bridge between detailed UA energetics and rapid docking outputs, supporting mechanistic insight and predictive modeling for protein-nanoparticle interfaces in nanobiotechnology and drug delivery. The choice of experimentally studied proteins offers a potential external anchor, and the explicit use of an external statistical measure (JSD) between independently computed distributions avoids immediate circularity.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Methods] Abstract and methods: The central claim to relate docking score landscapes to Boltzmann-averaged UA adsorption energetics is not supported by the reported procedure. The heatmaps use the single lowest (minimum) UA energy or docking score per angular bin rather than the bin partition function ∫ exp(−E/kT) dV dΩ over translations, fluctuations, and the solid angle of the bin. This minimum reports only the deepest point and does not equal the thermal propensity; no evidence is given that the authors performed the required averaging, corrected for bin volume, or tested sensitivity to bin width. Consequently the JSD values may reflect use of the same non-thermal proxy on both sides rather than a true validation.
  2. [Results] Results: The abstract states “encouraging agreement” for several of the eight proteins yet supplies no quantitative JSD values, error estimates, data-exclusion criteria, or parameter choices. Without these numbers it is impossible to judge whether the similarity is statistically meaningful or merely qualitative.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Clarify the precise definition of the angular bins (solid-angle normalization, overlap between neighboring bins) and state whether the same binning is applied to both UA and docking calculations.
  2. [Results] Add a short table or figure caption listing the eight proteins, their experimental references, and the specific JSD values obtained for each.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments, which help clarify the scope and limitations of our framework. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Methods] Abstract and methods: The central claim to relate docking score landscapes to Boltzmann-averaged UA adsorption energetics is not supported by the reported procedure. The heatmaps use the single lowest (minimum) UA energy or docking score per angular bin rather than the bin partition function ∫ exp(−E/kT) dV dΩ over translations, fluctuations, and the solid angle of the bin. This minimum reports only the deepest point and does not equal the thermal propensity; no evidence is given that the authors performed the required averaging, corrected for bin volume, or tested sensitivity to bin width. Consequently the JSD values may reflect use of the same non-thermal proxy on both sides rather than a true validation.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript employs the minimum UA energy or docking score per angular bin as a proxy for orientational binding propensity rather than a full thermal average over the partition function within each bin. This choice prioritizes computational efficiency and focuses on the dominant low-energy poses for heatmap construction. We will revise the abstract and methods to explicitly state that the comparison uses these minimum-based proxies on both sides, remove or qualify the phrasing about direct relation to Boltzmann-averaged energetics, and add a brief discussion of the approximation along with a note on bin-width sensitivity. These changes will be incorporated in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results: The abstract states “encouraging agreement” for several of the eight proteins yet supplies no quantitative JSD values, error estimates, data-exclusion criteria, or parameter choices. Without these numbers it is impossible to judge whether the similarity is statistically meaningful or merely qualitative.

    Authors: The results section of the manuscript reports the JSD values computed for each of the eight proteins together with the angular resolution and binning parameters employed. To improve accessibility, we will update the abstract to include representative quantitative JSD values for the cases of encouraging agreement, along with a concise statement of the key parameter choices. This revision will allow readers to assess the quantitative basis for the reported similarities. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; independent distributions compared via external metric

full rationale

The paper constructs orientation-resolved heatmaps separately from minimum UA adsorption energies and from docking scores, then quantifies similarity between the resulting distributions using Jensen-Shannon divergence. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or self-citation chain. The central comparison relies on two independently generated maps and an external statistical measure, making the derivation self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on standard domain assumptions in molecular modeling without introducing new entities or heavily fitted parameters beyond typical interaction refinement.

free parameters (1)
  • interaction parameters
    Abstract mentions iterative refinement of interaction parameters to improve agreement.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Coarse-grained united-atom models provide a reasonable approximation to protein adsorption energetics on nanoparticles
    Used to compute minimum adsorption energy for each orientation.
  • domain assumption Docking scores can be interpreted as proxies for binding propensity in orientational space
    Used to generate the second set of heatmaps for comparison.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5746 in / 1431 out tokens · 58954 ms · 2026-05-19T17:47:25.912696+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We construct orientation-resolved heatmaps in which polar and azimuthal angles uniquely specify the relative protein-nanoparticle pose, and the map amplitude reports binding propensity via the minimum UA adsorption energy or the docking score... Similarity between the two orientational distributions is quantified using the Jensen–Shannon divergence (JSD).

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Protein- nanoparticle interactions,

    I. Lynch and K. Dawson, “Protein- nanoparticle interactions,”Nano Today, vol. 3, pp. 40–47, 2008

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    Kinet- ics of the formation of a protein corona around nanoparticles,

    V. Zhdanov and N.-J. Cho, “Kinet- ics of the formation of a protein corona around nanoparticles,”Mathe- matical Biosciences, vol. 282, pp. 82–90, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Un- derstanding protein-nanoparticle inter- actions leading to protein corona for- mation: In vitro - in vivo correlation study,

    C. Marques, P. Maroni, L. Maurizi, O. Jordan, and G. Borchard, “Un- derstanding protein-nanoparticle inter- actions leading to protein corona for- mation: In vitro - in vivo correlation study,”International Journal of Biolog- ical Macromolecules, vol. 256, p. 128339, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    A computational view on nanomaterial intrinsic and ex- trinsic features for nanosafety and sus- tainability,

    G. Mancardi, A. Mikolajczyk, V. An- napoorani, A. Bahl, K. Blekos, J. Burkf, Y. C ¸ etin, K. Chairetakis, S. Dutta, L. Escorihuela,et al., “A computational view on nanomaterial intrinsic and ex- trinsic features for nanosafety and sus- tainability,”Materials Today, vol. 67, pp. 344–370, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Un- derstanding the nanoparticle–protein corona using methods to quantify ex- change rates and affinities of proteins for nanoparticles,

    T. Cedervall, I. Lynch, S. Lindman, T. Bergg˚ ard, E. Thulin, H. Nilsson, K. A. Dawson, and S. Linse, “Un- derstanding the nanoparticle–protein corona using methods to quantify ex- change rates and affinities of proteins for nanoparticles,”Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences, vol. 104, pp. 2050–2055, 2007

    work page 2050

  6. [6]

    Coarse master equations for binding kinetics of amyloid peptide dimers,

    C. Leahy, R. Murphy, G. Hummer, E. Rosta, and N.-V. Buchete, “Coarse master equations for binding kinetics of amyloid peptide dimers,”The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, vol. 7, pp. 2676–2682, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Modelling bionano inter- actions and potential health risks for environmental nanoplastics: the case of functionalized polystyrene,

    J. Subbotina, O. McElligott, and V. Lobaskin, “Modelling bionano inter- actions and potential health risks for environmental nanoplastics: the case of functionalized polystyrene,”Environ- mental Science: Nano, vol. 13, pp. 1568– 1587, 2026

    work page 2026

  8. [8]

    Multiscale physics-based in silico modelling of nanocarrier- assisted intravascular drug delivery,

    N. Buchete, I. Cicha, S. Dutta, and P. Neofytou, “Multiscale physics-based in silico modelling of nanocarrier- assisted intravascular drug delivery,” Frontiers in Drug Delivery, vol. 4, p. 1362660, 2024

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Edito- rial: Modelling of intravascular drug de- livery using nanocarriers,

    P. Neofytou and N.-V. Buchete, “Edito- rial: Modelling of intravascular drug de- livery using nanocarriers,”Frontiers in Drug Delivery, vol. 5, 2025

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Computer simulations of the dis- sociation mechanism of gleevec from abl kinase with milestoning,

    B. Narayan, N.-V. Buchete, and R. El- ber, “Computer simulations of the dis- sociation mechanism of gleevec from abl kinase with milestoning,”The Jour- nal of Physical Chemistry B, vol. 125, pp. 5706–5715, 2021

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    A hard- sphere model of protein corona for- mation on spherical and cylindrical nanoparticles,

    I. Rouse and V. Lobaskin, “A hard- sphere model of protein corona for- mation on spherical and cylindrical nanoparticles,”Biophysical Journal, vol. 120, pp. 4457–4471, 2021

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Multiscale modelling of biomolecular corona formation on metal- lic surfaces,

    P. Amini, I. Rouse, J. Subbotina, and V. Lobaskin, “Multiscale modelling of biomolecular corona formation on metal- lic surfaces,”Beilstein Journal of Nan- otechnology, vol. 15, pp. 215–229, 2024

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Modelling bionano inter- actions and potential health risks for environmental nanoplastics: the case of functionalized polystyrene,

    J. Subbotina, O. McElligott, and V. Lobaskin, “Modelling bionano inter- actions and potential health risks for environmental nanoplastics: the case of functionalized polystyrene,”Environ- mental Science: Nano, 2026. 10

    work page 2026

  14. [14]

    Milk protein adsorption on metallic iron surfaces,

    P. Mosaddeghi Amini, J. Subbotina, and V. Lobaskin, “Milk protein adsorption on metallic iron surfaces,”Nanomateri- als, vol. 13, p. 1857, 2023

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Computational modelling of bionano interface,

    V. Lobaskin, J. Subbotina, and I. Rouse, “Computational modelling of bionano interface,”Europhysics Letters, vol. 143, p. 57001, 2023

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    UA- NanoDock: A web-based UnitedAtom multiscale nanodocking tool for predict- ing protein adsorption onto nanoparti- cles,

    J. Subbotina, P. Kolokathis, A. Tsouma- nis, N. Sidiropoulos, I. Rouse, I. Lynch, V. Lobaskin, and A. Afantitis, “UA- NanoDock: A web-based UnitedAtom multiscale nanodocking tool for predict- ing protein adsorption onto nanoparti- cles,”Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 65, pp. 3142–3153, 2025

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Comp- SafeNano project: NanoInformatics approaches for safe-by-design nanoma- terials,

    D. Zouraris, A. Mavrogiorgis, A. Tsoumanis, L. Saarim¨ aki, G. del Giu- dice, A. Federico, A. Serra, D. Greco, I. Rouse, J. Subbotina,et al., “Comp- SafeNano project: NanoInformatics approaches for safe-by-design nanoma- terials,”Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal, vol. 29, pp. 13– 28, 2025

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    In silico prediction of protein binding affinities onto core–shell PEGylated no- ble metal nanoparticles for rational de- sign of drug nanocarriers,

    J. Subbotina, I. Rouse, and V. Lobaskin, “In silico prediction of protein binding affinities onto core–shell PEGylated no- ble metal nanoparticles for rational de- sign of drug nanocarriers,”Nanoscale, vol. 15, pp. 13371–13383, 2023

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Protein corona finger- printing predicts the cellular interaction of gold and silver nanoparticles,

    C. Walkey, J. Olsen, F. Song, R. Liu, H. Guo, D. Olsen, Y. Cohen, A. Emili, and W. Chan, “Protein corona finger- printing predicts the cellular interaction of gold and silver nanoparticles,”ACS Nano, vol. 8, pp. 2439–2455, 2014

    work page 2014

  20. [20]

    Computational predic- tion and experimental analysis of the nanoparticle-protein corona: Showcas- ing an in vitro-in silico workflow provid- ing FAIR data,

    I. Hasenkopf, R. Mills-Goodlet, L. John- son, I. Rouse, M. Geppert, A. Duschl, D. Maier, V. Lobaskin, I. Lynch, and M. Himly, “Computational predic- tion and experimental analysis of the nanoparticle-protein corona: Showcas- ing an in vitro-in silico workflow provid- ing FAIR data,”Nano Today, vol. 46, p. 101561, 2022

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Interactions of nanoparticles and biosystems: Microenvironment of nanoparticles and biomolecules in nanomedicine,

    C. Aur´ ıa-Soro, T. Nesma, P. Juanes- Velasco, A. Landeira-Vi˜ nuela, H. Fidalgo-Gomez, V. Acebes- Fernandez, R. Gongora, M. Parra, R. Manzano-Roman, and M. Fuentes, “Interactions of nanoparticles and biosystems: Microenvironment of nanoparticles and biomolecules in nanomedicine,”Nanomaterials, vol. 9, p. 1365, 2019

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Structure and interac- tion of nanoparticle–protein complexes,

    S. Kumar, I. Yadav, V. Aswal, and J. Kohlbrecher, “Structure and interac- tion of nanoparticle–protein complexes,” Langmuir, vol. 34, pp. 5679–5695, 2018

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Modelling and predicting the biological effects of nanomaterials,

    D. Winkler, F. Burden, B. Yan, R. Weissleder, C. Tassa, S. Shaw, and V. Epa, “Modelling and predicting the biological effects of nanomaterials,”SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research, vol. 25, pp. 161–172, 2014

    work page 2014

  24. [24]

    A nanoinformatics decision support tool for the virtual screening of gold nanoparticle cellular association using protein corona fingerprints,

    A. Afantitis, G. Melagraki, A. Tsouma- nis, E. Valsami-Jones, and I. Lynch, “A nanoinformatics decision support tool for the virtual screening of gold nanoparticle cellular association using protein corona fingerprints,”Nanotoxi- cology, vol. 12, pp. 1148–1165, 2018

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    A semi-automated workflow for fair ma- turity indicators in the life sciences,

    A. Ammar, S. Bonaretti, L. Winckers, J. Quik, M. Bakker, D. Maier, I. Lynch, J. van Rijn, and E. Willighagen, “A semi-automated workflow for fair ma- turity indicators in the life sciences,” Nanomaterials, vol. 10, p. 2068, 2020. 11

    work page 2068

  26. [26]

    Poly(ε-caprolactone)-based nanocom- posites: Influence of compatibilization on properties of poly(ε-caprolactone)- silica nanocomposites,

    M. Avella, F. Bondioli, V. Can- nillo, E. Di Pace, M. Errico, A. Fer- rari, B. Focher, and M. Malinconico, “Poly(ε-caprolactone)-based nanocom- posites: Influence of compatibilization on properties of poly(ε-caprolactone)- silica nanocomposites,”Composites Sci- ence and Technology, vol. 66, pp. 886– 894, 2006

    work page 2006

  27. [27]

    Conformational dynamics of human IAPP monomers,

    R. Murphy, J. Conlon, T. Mansoor, S. Luca, S. Vaiana, and N.-V. Buchete, “Conformational dynamics of human IAPP monomers,”Biophysical Chem- istry, vol. 167, pp. 1–7, 2012

    work page 2012

  28. [28]

    Nano- SolveIT project: Driving nanoinformat- ics research to develop innovative and integrated tools for in silico nanosafety assessment,

    A. Afantitis, G. Melagraki, P. Isigonis, A. Tsoumanis, D. Varsou, E. Valsami- Jones, A. Papadiamantis, L. Ellis, H. Sarimveis, P. Doganis,et al., “Nano- SolveIT project: Driving nanoinformat- ics research to develop innovative and integrated tools for in silico nanosafety assessment,”Computational and Struc- tural Biotechnology Journal, vol. 18, pp. 583–602, 2020

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    Patch- Dock and SymmDock: servers for rigid and symmetric docking,

    D. Schneidman-Duhovny, Y. Inbar, R. Nussinov, and H. Wolfson, “Patch- Dock and SymmDock: servers for rigid and symmetric docking,”Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 33, pp. W363–W367, 2005

    work page 2005

  30. [30]

    Molecular docking, a tool to determine interaction of CuO and TiO2 nanoparticles with hu- man serum albumin,

    S. Chibber and I. Ahmad, “Molecular docking, a tool to determine interaction of CuO and TiO2 nanoparticles with hu- man serum albumin,”Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports, vol. 6, pp. 63–67, 2016

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    The need for improved methodology in protein corona analy- sis,

    M. Mahmoudi, “The need for improved methodology in protein corona analy- sis,”Nature Communications, vol. 13, p. 49, 2022

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    The interpre- tation of protein structures: Estimation of static accessibility,

    B. Lee and F. Richards, “The interpre- tation of protein structures: Estimation of static accessibility,”Journal of Molec- ular Biology, vol. 55, pp. 379–400, 1971

    work page 1971

  33. [33]

    Multiscale modelling of bionano interface,

    H. Lopez, E. Brandt, A. Mirzoev, D. Zhurkin, A. Lyubartsev, and V. Lobaskin, “Multiscale modelling of bionano interface,” inModelling the Toxicity of Nanoparticles(L. Tran, M. Ba˜ nares, and R. Rallo, eds.), pp. 173–206, Springer International Publishing, 2017

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    Biophysical descriptors of nanoparticle protein coronas,

    V. Karunakaran Annapoorani, S. Dutta, O. Ajia, O. Petrisor, V. Lobaskin, and N.-V. Buchete, “Biophysical descriptors of nanoparticle protein coronas,”The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, pp. 11356–11364, 2025

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    A multiscale model of protein adsorption on a nanoparticle surface,

    D. Power, I. Rouse, S. Poggio, E. Brandt, H. Lopez, A. Lyubart- sev, and V. Lobaskin, “A multiscale model of protein adsorption on a nanoparticle surface,”Modelling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 27, p. 084003, 2019

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    Coarse- grained model of adsorption of blood plasma proteins onto nanoparticles,

    H. Lopez and V. Lobaskin, “Coarse- grained model of adsorption of blood plasma proteins onto nanoparticles,” The Journal of Chemical Physics, vol. 143, p. 243138, 2015

    work page 2015

  37. [37]

    Optimization of the additive CHARMM all-atom protein force field targeting improved sampling of the back- boneϕ,ψand side-chainχ 1 andχ 2 dihe- dral angles,

    R. Best, X. Zhu, J. Shim, P. Lopes, J. Mittal, M. Feig, and A. MacK- erell, “Optimization of the additive CHARMM all-atom protein force field targeting improved sampling of the back- boneϕ,ψand side-chainχ 1 andχ 2 dihe- dral angles,”Journal of Chemical The- ory and Computation, vol. 8, pp. 3257– 3273, 2012

    work page 2012

  38. [38]

    Efficient unbound docking of rigid molecules,

    D. Duhovny, R. Nussinov, and H. Wolf- son, “Efficient unbound docking of rigid molecules,” inProceedings of the 2nd 12 Workshop on Algorithms in Bioinfor- matics (WABI), pp. 185–200, Springer, 2002

    work page 2002

  39. [39]

    On the Jensen–Shannon symmetrization of distances relying on abstract means,

    F. Nielsen, “On the Jensen–Shannon symmetrization of distances relying on abstract means,”Entropy, vol. 21, p. 485, 2019

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    Similarity-based methods for word sense disambiguation,

    I. Dagan, L. Lee, and F. Pereira, “Similarity-based methods for word sense disambiguation,” inProceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics and Eighth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, Association for Com- putational Linguistics, 1997

    work page 1997

  41. [41]

    A new metric for probability distributions,

    D. Endres and J. Schindelin, “A new metric for probability distributions,” IEEE Transactions on Information The- ory, vol. 49, pp. 1858–1860, 2003

    work page 2003

  42. [42]

    A new class of metric divergences on probabil- ity spaces and its applicability in statis- tics,

    F. ¨Osterreicher and I. Vajda, “A new class of metric divergences on probabil- ity spaces and its applicability in statis- tics,”Annals of the Institute of Statis- tical Mathematics, vol. 55, pp. 639–653, 2003

    work page 2003

  43. [43]

    Jensen- Shannon divergence and Hilbert space embedding,

    B. Fuglede and F. Topsoe, “Jensen- Shannon divergence and Hilbert space embedding,” inProceedings of the In- ternational Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), p. 31, 2004

    work page 2004

  44. [44]

    A metric for distributions with appli- cations to image databases,

    Y. Rubner, C. Tomasi, and L. Guibas, “A metric for distributions with appli- cations to image databases,” inPro- ceedings of the Sixth International Con- ference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp. 59–66, 1998

    work page 1998

  45. [45]

    Biologic effects of nanoparticle-allergen conjugates: time- resolved uptake using an in vitro lung epithelial co-culture model of A549 and THP-1 cells,

    B. Grotz, M. Geppert, R. Mills-Goodlet, S. Hofer, N. Hofst¨ atter, C. Asam, A. Feinle, K. Kocsis, T. Berger, O. Diwald,et al., “Biologic effects of nanoparticle-allergen conjugates: time- resolved uptake using an in vitro lung epithelial co-culture model of A549 and THP-1 cells,”Environmental Science: Nano, vol. 5, pp. 2184–2197, 2018

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    Orientational potentials ex- tracted from protein structures improve native fold recognition,

    N.-V. Buchete, J. Straub, and D. Thiru- malai, “Orientational potentials ex- tracted from protein structures improve native fold recognition,”Protein Sci- ence, vol. 13, pp. 862–874, 2004

    work page 2004

  47. [47]

    Orientation-dependent coarse- grained potentials derived by statis- tical analysis of molecular structural databases,

    N. Buchete, J. Straub, and D. Thiru- malai, “Orientation-dependent coarse- grained potentials derived by statis- tical analysis of molecular structural databases,”Polymer, vol. 45, pp. 597– 608, 2004

    work page 2004

  48. [48]

    Continuous anisotropic repre- sentation of coarse-grained potentials for proteins by spherical harmonics synthe- sis,

    N. Buchete, J. Straub, and D. Thiru- malai, “Continuous anisotropic repre- sentation of coarse-grained potentials for proteins by spherical harmonics synthe- sis,”Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling, vol. 22, pp. 441–450, 2004

    work page 2004

  49. [49]

    Anisotropic coarse-grained statistical potentials improve the ability to identify nativelike protein structures,

    N. Buchete, J. Straub, and D. Thiru- malai, “Anisotropic coarse-grained statistical potentials improve the ability to identify nativelike protein structures,”The Journal of Chemical Physics, vol. 118, pp. 7658–7671, 2003

    work page 2003

  50. [50]

    Development of novel statistical potentials for protein fold recognition,

    N. Buchete, J. Straub, and D. Thiru- malai, “Development of novel statistical potentials for protein fold recognition,” Current Opinion in Structural Biology, vol. 14, pp. 225–232, 2004. 13 1 Supplemental Material: Orientation-Dependent Protein Binding at Nanoparticle Interfaces Vigneshwari Karunakaran Annapoorani1,2, Ian Rouse1,2, Vladimir Lobaskin1,2, N...

    work page 2004