Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Chern-Simons-Higgs Model as a Theory of Protein Molecules

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A four-parameter curve model places protein helices and beta strands on one curvature-torsion relation, leaving a single parameter to control loops and strand abundance.

desk verdict A coherent gauge-theory model with honest scoping, undermined by an empirical test that fits parameters to the same points it validates and compares alpha helices to beta strands fitted to different curves. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01080 v2 pith:VZO2XIMP submitted 2019-08-09 cond-mat.soft hep-phhep-thq-bio.BM

Dmitry Melnikov , Alyson B. F. Neves This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softhep-phhep-thq-bio.BM
keywords Chern-Simons-Higgsmodelproteinsecondarystructurecurvature-torsionrelationeffectivefieldtheoryalphahelicesbetastrandssolitonshelix-coiltransition
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 a regularized one-dimensional Abelian-Chern-Simons-Higgs model—an effective theory of a curve in three dimensions written in its curvature $\kappa$ and torsion $\tau$—can serve as a minimal account of protein secondary structure. The model predicts that helical motifs obey $\tau = F/(\kappa^2+\epsilon^2)$, with two constants $F$ and $\epsilon$; fitting resolved protein structures gives $F\simeq 0.70\,\mathrm{\AA}^{-1}$ and $\epsilon\simeq 1.5\,\mathrm{\AA}^{-1}$. Alpha helices sit at high curvature and low torsion, $\beta$ strands at low curvature and higher torsion, both near one curve. With $F$ and $\epsilon$ fixed, a single parameter remains, and the paper shows it sets the length of loops and the abundance of $\beta$-strand-like straight pieces. The interest is that a four-parameter field theory, not a detailed chemistry model, reproduces the main geometric split of secondary structure and yields testable predictions for the helix-coil transition.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the gauge-invariant energy functional $$E = \int_0^L ds\,\frac12\left(|\nabla\hat\kappa|^2 - $m^{2}$|\hat\kappa|^2 + \$\lambda$|\hat\kappa|^4\right) - F\int_0^L ds\,\hat\tau,$$ with covariant derivative $\nabla = d/ds - i\hat\tau$ and a regulator mass term for $\hat\tau$ that cuts off the divergence at zero curvature. The Chern-Simons term makes the curve chiral and, through the Higgs mechanism, produces the algebraic relation $\tau = F/(\kappa^2+\epsilon^2)$. The effective potential $V(\kappa)=\lambda(\kappa^2-\kappa_0^2)^2(\kappa^2+\kappa_1^2)/(2(\kappa^2+\epsilon^2))$ supplies two minimum-energy states—one at zero curvature, one at nonzero curvature—and the stable kink solutions and unstable sphaleron saddle points that the paper interprets as loops and structural transitions.

What would settle it

Take an independent set of high-resolution protein structures, fit the backbone helices and the midpoints of $\beta$ strands as the paper does, and check whether the measured $(\kappa,\tau)$ pairs fall on the curve $\tau = 0.70/(\kappa^2+1.5^2)\,\mathrm{\AA}^{-1}$. A systematic drift of the best-fit $F$ and $\epsilon$ across protein families, or a $\beta$-strand cluster that does not connect to the $\alpha$-helix cluster through this curve, would refute the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the regularized one-dimensional Abelian-Chern-Simons-Higgs model is compatible with the geometry of protein molecules at the level of secondary structure. In this model a curve is described by a complex curvature that transforms under a local rotation of the frame and by a torsion that plays the role of a gauge field; after the phase is eaten, torsion is not an independent dynamical field but is fixed by the algebraic relation $\tau = F/(\kappa^2+\epsilon^2)$. The effective potential can have two minimum-energy states, one at zero curvature and one at nonzero curvature, which the paper identifies with $\beta$-strand-like ribbons and $\alpha$ helices. Fitting regular helices and $\beta$-strand midpoints from resolved structures yields $F\simeq0.70\,\mathrm{\AA}^{-1}$, $\epsilon\simeq1.5\,\mathrm{\AA}^{-1}$, and $\kappa_0\simeq1.60\,\mathrm{\AA}^{-1}$; the data cluster around the predicted curve, including low-curvature, high-torsion strand points that would be invisible without the regulator. The one remaining parameter, $\kappa_1$, interpolates between proteins with only short loops, proteins with metastable strands and 10–40 Å loops, and proteins with nearly degenerate long straight pieces; in the preferred regime the zero-curvature state is metastable and is predicted to become thermodynamically disfavored near room or body temperature when loops are about 20 Å long.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that $\beta$ strands can be treated as constant-torsion helical ribbons, so that fitting the midpoints between consecutive backbone carbon atoms captures their geometry; if real $\beta$ strands are too irregular or kinked, the low-curvature, high-torsion points that fix $F$ and $\epsilon$ do not support the claimed universal relation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The relation $\tau=F/(\kappa^2+\epsilon^2)$ makes curvature and torsion of helical motifs dependent: with $F\simeq0.70\,\mathrm{\AA}^{-1}$ and $\epsilon\simeq1.5\,\mathrm{\AA}^{-1}$, measuring either quantity fixes the other.
  • Alpha helices and beta strands become two limits of a single helical family; a small set of stretched helices with opposite chirality is predicted to fall outside this universal class.
  • With $F$, $\epsilon$, and $\kappa_0$ fixed, $\kappa_1$ controls the loop length connecting helices and the propensity to form beta-strand-like states: large $\kappa_1$ gives short loops, small $\kappa_1$ gives long nearly straight inserts.
  • For loop lengths near 20 Å, the zero-curvature strand-like state is metastable and is predicted to be disfavored near room or body temperature, while quantum tunneling through the barrier is strongly suppressed.
  • Sphaleron solutions interpolating between strand states, unstable in the continuum, are expected to stabilize in discrete finite-length protein chains, potentially accounting for beta-hairpins.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension not argued in the paper: apply the same curvature-torsion fit to all resolved protein structures without the regularity filters; if the relation persists only for visually regular motifs, the constants describe ideal secondary-structure geometry rather than a universal backbone property.
  • The model implies that the α and β regions of the standard torsion-angle correlation plots are connected by a one-parameter curve; a testable consequence is that intermediate structures, such as stretched helices, should lie between the two clusters on the same $\tau(\kappa)$ curve.
  • If the mechanism is generic, similar gauge-theoretic terms might describe other chiral filamentous biopolymers, such as amyloid fibrils or collagen, where curvature-torsion data could be measured and compared against the same relation.
  • The transition-temperature estimates rely on converting inverse Ångströms to kelvin at about 3000 K; a direct comparison with measured helix-coil melting temperatures for proteins with known loop-length distributions would test that conversion.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a one-dimensional Abelian Chern-Simons-Higgs (ACSH) effective field theory for a space curve representing a protein backbone, with curvature and torsion as the dynamical fields. It derives static helical solutions, studies kink and sphaleron solutions in both grand canonical and canonical formulations, and analyzes classical and quantum stability of the vacua. The authors then confront the model with PDB data on alpha helices and beta strands, extract supposedly universal values F ≈ 0.70 Å^-1 and ε ≈ 1.5 Å^-1 from the curvature–torsion plot, and use measured loop lengths to fix λ and κ1, proposing that κ1 controls the abundance of beta strands. The theoretical sections are internally consistent and clearly presented, but the empirical validation is weakened by in-sample fitting and by comparing alpha helices and beta strands through different fitted curves.

Significance. If the empirical claims were supported, this would be a strikingly minimal effective model of protein secondary structure: four parameters, a geometric invariant relation, and a single remaining parameter controlling strand propensity. The theoretical part is a useful and clearly written analysis of the regularized ACSH model, including explicit soliton solutions and decay-rate estimates, and it makes a falsifiable prediction through Eq. (23). However, the central data confrontation in Section 6 is not yet credible as confirmation: the parameters are fitted to the same points used for validation, and the beta-strand points are derived from a different geometric object (midpoint curves) than the alpha-helix points (Cα chains). The paper would be substantially improved by a cross-validated fit and by using a consistent curve representation; as it stands, the significance of the result rests on the theoretical derivation and the proposed framework rather than on the current empirical test.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.1, Eq. (23), Fig. 15, Eq. (66)] The central empirical validation is circular. In Section 6.1 the values F ≈ 0.70 Å^-1 and ε ≈ 1.5 Å^-1 in Eq. (66) are obtained by fitting relation (23) to the same (κ0, |τ0|) points in Fig. 15 that are then presented as evidence for relation (23). The alpha-helix points alone form a compact cluster around (1.6, 0.15) and cannot meaningfully constrain a two-parameter fit; the beta-strand points are therefore what determine the fit, and the displayed agreement of Fig. 15 largely restates the fitting procedure. A concrete remedy would be to fit Eq. (23) using only the alpha-helix data, then test whether the beta-strand points fall on the predicted curve; alternatively, the parameters should be fixed from an independent observable and then compared with the full dataset. Without such an out-of-sample check, the universality claim in Eq. (66) is not supported.
  2. [Section 6.1, Tables 1–2, Eq. (64)] The comparison in Fig. 15 is not made between the same geometric objects. Alpha helices are fitted directly to Cα coordinates using Eq. (64), whereas beta strands are fitted by first replacing the Cα zigzag with midpoints between consecutive Cα pairs and then fitting those midpoints to a constant-torsion helix. The model in Section 2 is an effective theory for one embedded curve; if that curve is the protein backbone, then the beta-strand fit should be performed on the same Cα chain used for alpha helices. The midpoint construction smooths the zigzag and can produce low-curvature, finite-torsion points essentially by construction, so the beta-strand points that constrain ε may be artifacts of the fitting convention rather than physical evidence for Eq. (23). This concern is reinforced by the authors' own statement that the beta-strand selection was subjective and that no proper error study was performed.
  3. [Section 6.2, Tables 3–4, Fig. 17] The loop-length data are used both to determine the remaining parameters and to claim consistency with the model. In Section 6.2, κ1 and λ are estimated from measured loop lengths through Eqs. (69) and (74) together with relations (67) and (68), and the same loop-length measurements are then discussed as being consistent with the model's kink picture and with Fig. 17. This is another in-sample consistency check, not an independent prediction. The manuscript should either determine κ1 from a separate observable and then predict the loop-length distribution, or explicitly label these loop-length estimates as posterior calibration. As written, the agreement between the model and the observed loop sizes is built into the fitting procedure.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Section 6.1] The notation for units is confusing: in Section 2, κ is treated as dimensionless and τ has energy units, while in Section 6 all quantities are reported in inverse Å without restating the role of the scale Λ. A short note in the data section explaining the conversion would help the reader.
  2. [Fig. 15 caption] The caption should state explicitly which points are used for the blue fit of relation (9) and for the green fit of relation (23), including whether the 2pne points are excluded from the fits. This information is relevant for assessing the fitted values in Eq. (66).
  3. [Section 6.1, final paragraph] The authors note that no proper error study was performed; given that the beta-strand points are the main constraint on ε, even rough uncertainties on the fitted κ0 and τ0 values in Tables 1 and 2 would be needed to judge the significance of the fit.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical and wording issues, for example 'on figure 2 (left)' and inconsistent spelling of 'disfavors'/'disfavours'; these should be corrected in a final revision.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

F and epsilon are fit to the same Fig. 15 points offered as confirmation of Eq. (23), and beta-strand points are obtained from a smoothed midpoint curve, so the empirical support is partly in-sample.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.1, Eq. (66) and Fig. 15 caption]
    "One can see that the points can be fit with a relation of the form (23) assuming some universal mean values for parameters F and ϵ. Data on figure 15 indeed support the claim that relation (9) is regularized in real proteins bounding the value of torsion for small curvature. The fits indicate to the following universal values, F≃ 0.70 Å−1, ϵ≃ 1.5 Å−1. Fig. 15 caption: The light green line is a fit of relation (23), with beta strand points included."

    Equation (23) contains F and epsilon as free parameters. These parameters are obtained by fitting the very (kappa0, tau0) point set in Fig. 15 that is then presented as evidence for Eq. (23), explicitly including the beta-strand points in the fit. The agreement is therefore in-sample: with two free parameters and essentially two clusters of data, the curve is adjusted to the same points used to confirm it. The model supplies the functional form, but the paper's statement that the data 'support' the relation and 'indicate' the universal values treats a fit as an independent test.

  2. self definitional [Section 6.1, beta strands fitting procedure]
    "Beta strands are harder to analyze since the positions of Cα atoms do not obviously resemble a helix, but rather a zigzag. As already mentioned we would like to think of the zigzag as of a twisted ribbon, as the one shown on figure 14 (right). To measure the curvature and torsion of the ribbon we fit the positions of the midpoints between the consecutive pairs of Cα."

    Alpha helices are fitted directly to the C-alpha backbone coordinates with eq. (64), so their kappa0, tau0 describe the curve the model claims to represent. For beta strands, the paper first replaces the C-alpha zigzag by the chain of midpoints between consecutive C-alpha pairs and then fits that derived curve to a helix. The low-curvature, high-torsion beta points in Fig. 15 are thus not measurements of the same backbone object; they are produced by the midpoint smoothing convention. Since those beta points are what fix epsilon and make Eq. (23) distinguishable from a constant-torsion curve, the confirmation of the regularized relation reduces in part to this smoothing choice.

full rationale

The field-theoretic derivation is not circular: Eqs. (7)-(10) and the regularized relation (23) follow from the stated energy functional and are derived within the paper, not imported from the data or from a self-citation. The self-citations to earlier work on curvature-torsion gauge symmetry and discrete soliton models are motivational rather than load-bearing for the mathematical steps. The circularity is in the empirical section. First, F and epsilon are fitted to the same Fig. 15 points that are presented as supporting Eq. (23), with the beta-strand points explicitly included in the fit, so the agreement is not an out-of-sample prediction. Second, the beta-strand data are obtained by fitting a smoothed midpoint chain, not the C-alpha backbone curve, while the alpha-helix data come from the C-alpha chain itself; the low-curvature points that determine epsilon may be artifacts of that smoothing. The paper is transparent that it fits parameters and that no error study was performed, but transparency does not remove the in-sample character of the confirmation. The later estimates of kappa1 and lambda from loop lengths are also calibrations rather than predictions, though the paper presents them as estimates. Overall, the central geometry relation has independent model content, but its presented empirical support is substantially weakened by fitted parameters and a curve-substitution convention, giving partial circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central model depends on several modeling choices and fitted parameters. The gauge symmetry provides the structure, but the identification with proteins and the numerical values of F, epsilon, lambda, and kappa_1 are imposed by hand from the same data used for validation.

free parameters (6)
  • kappa_0 (helical curvature minimum) = 1.60 A^-1 (mean from Table 1)
    Fitted from PDB alpha helices using helix equation (64); sets the curvature of the helical vacuum.
  • F (Chern-Simons flux) = 0.70 A^-1 (universal fit, eq 66)
    Fitted jointly from alpha helix and beta strand points in figure 15 via relation (23).
  • epsilon (Proca regulator) = 1.5 A^-1 (universal fit, eq 66)
    Fitted from the same data via relation (23); regularizes the singularity at kappa = 0.
  • lambda (quartic coupling) = approximately 0.01 (tables 3 and 4)
    Estimated from loop lengths using L_loop ~ 2 R_sph and relations (67) or (68).
  • kappa_1 (protein modulus) = varies with protein, 0 to about 1.4 A^-1 (tables 3 and 4)
    Tuned per protein to match measured loop lengths; controls loop length and strand abundance.
  • Lambda (unit conversion) = 1 A^-1 ~ 3000 K (eq 73)
    Assumed to convert inverse angstroms to temperature using hydrogen bond energy 6 kcal/mol; not derived from the model.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A protein backbone can be represented as a smooth continuous curve with local curvature kappa and torsion tau.
    Introduced in Section 1 as the starting point of the effective theory; ignores amino-acid discreteness.
  • domain assumption The gauge-invariant energy functional (3) is the minimal effective Hamiltonian for such curves.
    Section 2 postulates the Abelian Higgs plus Chern-Simons form; not derived from protein chemistry.
  • domain assumption Beta strands can be modeled as constant-torsion helical ribbons.
    Section 6.1 proposes to fit beta strands by midpoints between C_alpha atoms; the paper itself calls this a proposal.
  • ad hoc to paper The Proca mass term (22) is an acceptable regularization of the singular kappa = 0 potential.
    Introduced to regularize the divergent 1/kappa^2 term; its parameter epsilon is later fitted to data.
  • ad hoc to paper The conversion factor Lambda = 1 A^-1 ~ 3000 K (eq 73) maps geometric units to thermal energies.
    Chosen to match hydrogen bond energies; no independent derivation in the paper.
  • standard math Standard Frenet-Serret and Calugareanu-White-Fuller theorems apply to protein backbone curves.
    Used in Sections 2 and 3 for frame description and twist/self-linking relations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chern-Simons-Higgs Model as a Theory of Protein Molecules." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VZO2XIMP

@misc{pith2026190901080,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chern-Simons-Higgs Model as a Theory of Protein Molecules},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VZO2XIMP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01080}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper we discuss a one-dimensional Abelian Higgs model with Chern-Simons interaction as an effective theory of one-dimensional curves embedded in three-dimensional space. We demonstrate how this effective model is compatible with the geometry of protein molecules. Using standard field theory techniques we analyze phenomenologically interesting static configurations of the model and discuss their stability. This simple model predicts some characteristic relations for the geometry of secondary structure motifs of proteins, and we show how this is consistent with the experimental data. After using the data to universally fix basic local geometric parameters, such as the curvature and torsion of the helical motifs, we are left with a single free parameter. We explain how this parameter controls the abundance and shape of the principal motifs (alpha helices, beta strands and loops connecting them).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01080 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Correlation plots of curvature and torsion angles calculated with respect to positions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Left) Potential energy in the grand canonical ensemble theory (13). (Right) Potential energy in the canonical ensemble (11) with phenomenologically interesting choices of parameters. It is convenient to introduce the following parameterization of the potential, which would also apply to the study of the canonical ensemble: V (κ) = λ(κ 2 − κ 2 0 ) 2 (κ 2 − κ 2 1 ) 2κ 2 . (14) In the grand canonical case we assume κ … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Static minimum energy solutions of the model are helices. The ratio of the pitch to the radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Left) Regularized potential in the grand canonical ensemble for  2/κ2 1 < 1. (Right) The same potential extended to negative values of κ. 3.2 Solitons Apart from the ground state helices, the theory with potential (26) can have soliton-like solutions, which can be co…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Different kinks interpolating between two helical configurations. Different cases correspond to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Left) A Helix-Loop-Helix motif in the myoglobin molecule (PDB code 1a6m). The image is generated using the PyMOL software [31]. (Right) Dark soliton (sphaleron) solution. The dashed lines show the characteristic radius Rsph of the soliton from equation (31). soliton R…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (Left) Regularized potential (32). (Right) The same potential with an imaginary value of the parameter κ1, |κ 2 1 | < κ2 0  2/(κ 2 0 + 2 2 ) There are two types of solutions, beyond the constant ones, that can be discussed in the setup of the potential on figure 7 (r…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Left) A family of curvature profiles of the stable kink-like solution in the right potential of figure 7 labeled by ratio δ = /κ1. (Right) The curve corresponding to a solution with δ = 5. Red color highlights the piece contributing approximately half of the total en…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (Left) Curvature profile of the unstable bright soliton in the right potential of figure 7. Vertical lines indicate the estimate of the soliton size by equation (33) (Right) The curve corresponding to the bright soliton. Red color highlights the piece contributing appr…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (Left) Plots of the dimensionless energy D(ξ, ε) of the sphaleron. Color of the lines corresponds to variation of ε between ε = 0 (black) and ε = 5 (magenta). (Right) Plots of D(ξ, ε) as a function of ε for different values of ξ between ζ = 0.05 (black) and ζ = 0.8 (m…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (Left) Log plots of the dimensionless Euclidean action G(ξ, ε) on the sphaleron configuration. Color of the lines corresponds to variation of ε between ε = 0 (black) and ε = 1.5 (yellow). (Right) Log plots of G(ξ, ε) as a function of ε for different values of ξ betwee…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (Left) The dimensionless energy D˜(ξ, ε) of the sphaleron in the right potential of figure 7 plotted as a function of ξ for the indicated values of ε. (Right) The same dimensionless energy plotted as a function of ε for the indicated values of ξ. Vertical line indicat…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Plots of the dimensionless Euclidean action [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: An alpha helix of the myoglobin molecule [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: (Left) Statistics of the pairs (κ0, |τ0|) of the alpha helices (blue) and beta strands (red and green) from tables 1 and 2 respectively. Green and red points correspond to positive and negative torsion strands respectively. Orange points correspond to the case of the …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Examples of 3D fits of beta strands in bucandin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_16.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: figure 8. There is a second asymptotic region, close to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: (Left) Distribution of loop lengths Lloop ≤ 50 ˚A for a selected list of about hundred proteins. (Right) Dependence of the size of the loop connecting two helical vacua on the value of κ1. The size is determined numerically as the locus of 50% (blue) or 90% (magenta) …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G. N. Ramachandran, C. Ramakrishnan and V. Sasisekharan, Journal of Molecular Biology, 7 (1) (1963) 95

    1963

  2. [2]

    Ramakrishnan and G

    C. Ramakrishnan and G. N. Ramachandran Biophys. J. 5 (1965) 909

    work page 1965

  3. [3]

    Lovell, I

    S C. Lovell, I. W. Davis, W. B. Arendall, P. I. de Bakker, J. M. Word, M. G. Prisant,J. S. Richardson and D. C. Richardson, Proteins 50 (2003) 437

    2003

  4. [4]

    S. Hu, M. Lundgren and A. J. Niemi, Phys. Rev. E 83 (2011) 061908 [arXiv:1102.5658 [q-bio.BM]]

    arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    Hinsen, S

    K. Hinsen, S. Hu, G. R. Kneller and A. J. Niemi, J. Chem. Phys. 139 (2013) 124115

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    X. Peng, A. Chenani, S. Hu, Y. Zhou, A. J. Niemi, BMC Struct. Biol. 14 (2014) 27

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Topological Indices of Proteins

    D. Melnikov, A. J. Niemi and A. Sedrakyan, Sci. Rep. 9 (2019) no.1, 14641 [arXiv:1903.04220 [q- bio.BM]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Klapper, J

    I. Klapper, J. Comp. Phys. 125 (2) (1996) 325

    work page 1996

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    U. H. Danielsson, M. Lundgren and A. J. Niemi, Phys. Rev. E 82 (2010) 021910 [arXiv:0902.2920 [cond-mat.stat-mech]]

    2010 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Chernodub, S

    M. Chernodub, S. Hu and A. J. Niemi, Phys. Rev. E 82 (2010) 011916 [arXiv:1003.4481 [bio-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  3. [11]

    S. Hu, Y. Jiang and A. J. Niemi, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 105011

    2013

  4. [12]

    Gordeli, D

    I. Gordeli, D. Melnikov, A. J. Niemi and A. Sedrakyan, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) no.2, 021701(R) [arXiv:1508.03268 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    H. M. Berman, J. Westbrook, Z. Feng, G. Gilliland, T. N. Bhat, H. Weissig, I. N. Shindyalov, P. E. Bourne Nucl. Acid. Res. 28 (2000) 235-242. http://www.rcsb.org/

    2000

  6. [14]

    Molkenthin, S

    N. Molkenthin, S. Hu and A.J. Niemi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 78102

    2011

  7. [15]

    S. Hu, A. Krokhotin, A. J. Niemi, and X. Peng Phys. Rev. E 83 (2011) 041907

    2011

  8. [16]

    Krokhotin, A

    A. Krokhotin, A. J. Niemi and X. Peng, Phys. Rev. E 85 (2012) 031906

    2012

  9. [17]

    A. J. Niemi, Theoret. Math. Phys. 181 (1) (2014) 1235. 31

    2014

  10. [18]

    Molochkov, A

    A. Molochkov, A. Begun and A. Niemi, EPJ Web Conf. 137 (2017) 04004 [arXiv:1703.04263 [q- bio.BM]]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Melnikov and A

    D. Melnikov and A. B. F. Neves, arXiv:1908.11739 [q-bio.BM]

    1908 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Frenet, J

    F. Frenet, J. Math. Pures Appl. 17 (1852) 437

  13. [21]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz. Theory of Elasticity , 3rd Ed.Pergamon, Oxford 1986

    1986

  14. [22]

    F. B. Fuller Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 75 (1978) 3557

    1978

  15. [23]

    Tsuru and M

    H. Tsuru and M. Wadati, Biopolymers 25 (1986) 2083

    1986

  16. [24]

    C. J. Benham, Phys. Rev. A bf 39 (1989) 2582

    1989

  17. [25]

    Schlick and W

    T. Schlick and W. K. Olson, Science 257 (1992) 1110

    1992

  18. [26]

    Katritch and A

    V. Katritch and A. V. Vologodskii, Biophys. J. 72 (1997) 1070

    1997

  19. [27]

    Calugareanu, Rev

    G. Calugareanu, Rev. Math Pures Appl. 4 (1959) 5

    1959

  20. [28]

    J. H. White, Am. J. Math. 91 (1969) 693

    1969

  21. [29]

    F. B. Fuller, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 68 4 (1971) 815

    1971

  22. [30]

    M. R. Dennis and J. H. Hannay, Proc . R. Soc. Lond. A 461 (2005) 3245

    2005

  23. [31]

    The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, Version 2.0 Schr¨ odinger, LLC

  24. [32]

    N. H. Christ and T. D. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 12 (1975) 1606

    1975

  25. [33]

    Bazeia and L

    D. Bazeia and L. Losano, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 025016 [hep-th/0511193]

    2006 arXiv

  26. [34]

    F. R. Klinkhamer and N. S. Manton, Phys. Rev. D 30 (1984) 2212

    1984

  27. [35]

    Classical Theory of Gauge Fields,

    V. A. Rubakov, “Classical Theory of Gauge Fields,” Princeton University Press, 2002

    2002

  28. [36]

    Chakrabartty and R

    A. Chakrabartty and R. L. Baldwin, Adv Protein Chem. 46 (1995) 141

    1995

  29. [37]

    Protein Folding, Misfolding and Aggregation: Classical Themes and Novel Approaches

    A. J. Doig, in V. Mu˜ noz (ed.) “Protein Folding, Misfolding and Aggregation: Classical Themes and Novel Approaches” Royal Society of Chemistry (2008)

    2008

  30. [38]

    Sheu, D.-Y

    S.-Y. Sheu, D.-Y. Yang, H. L. Selzle and E. W. Schlag, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 100 22 (2003) 12683. 32

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.