Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

A nonequilibrium strategy for fast target search on the genome

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 The paper proposes chromophoresis, a nonequilibrium search mechanism in which repair proteins deposit a chemical mark and are repelled by their own mark, letting them run along DNA and dive into collapsed chromatin to reach buried lesions.

desk verdict A novel negative-feedback mechanism for protein search on chromatin, with a clean 1D analytic core, but the speedup claim needs direct search-time simulations before it is proven. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06671 v3 pith:YMQFOCD4 submitted 2019-08-19 q-bio.SC cond-mat.softphysics.bio-ph

F. Cagnetta , D. Michieletto , D. Marenduzzo This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.SCcond-mat.softphysics.bio-ph
keywords chromophoresisepigeneticmarkstargetsearchfacilitateddiffusionchromatinDNArepairnonequilibriumdynamicsPARylation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes that repair proteins can find DNA lesions far faster than passive diffusion allows by depositing chemical marks on chromatin and then being repelled from those same marks. Because each protein creates its own repulsive trail, it moves persistently in one direction along the DNA, a state the authors call running, and on a collapsed chromosome the trail carves a local opening that lets the protein dive into the interior. Using a 1D analytic model and 3D Brownian dynamics simulations, the authors show that this nonequilibrium mechanism, chromophoresis, spreads searchers evenly along the genome and, at an optimal mark-removal rate, maximizes the fraction of chromatin visited per binding event. If real repair proteins such as PARP operate this way, the mechanism would explain how lesions buried in heterochromatin become accessible within minutes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the negative-feedback chromophoretic cycle. A bound protein deposits a mark on a neighboring chromatin bead at rate $k_{\rm on}$; the mark abrogates the protein's attraction to that bead, creating an asymmetric potential in which the protein slides downhill on the unmarked side at rate $q_+ \sim \epsilon$ and hops backward at the much smaller rate $q_- \sim \epsilon e^{-\epsilon/k_B T}$. Iterating this cycle converts symmetric sliding into a run with length $l_{\rm run} \simeq (B/2C)e^{\epsilon/k_B T}$, and the trail of marks left behind repels other searchers, producing hyperuniform spreading. On a collapsed globule, the actively maintained gradient of unmarked beads toward the interior drives the diving motion, and the optimal evaporation rate $k_{\rm off}$ sets a cusp in the visited fraction of the fiber.

What would settle it

Track a single fluorescently labeled chromatin-binding protein as it deposits marks on a collapsed, bridging-protein-folded chromatin globule in vitro. The central claim predicts persistent unidirectional runs and repeated inward-diving events once the mark-deposition rate exceeds about 1 s$^{-1}$; observing only diffusive sliding and surface sticking at any deposition rate would disprove the chromophoretic mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that negative feedback between mark deposition and protein motion—a protein deposits an epigenetic mark and is repelled by it, which is impossible at thermodynamic equilibrium—converts ordinary diffusive sliding into unidirectional motion and allows proteins to penetrate collapsed chromatin. In the 1D approximation, marking a neighboring bead tilts the potential so the protein slides toward unmarked beads with rate $q_+ \sim \epsilon$ while backward hops are suppressed by a factor $e^{-\epsilon/k_B T}$, yielding a run length $l_{\rm run} \sim e^{\epsilon/k_B T}$. Multiple searchers repel each other through their epigenetic trails and spread hyperuniformly. In 3D simulations of a fiber collapsed by bridging proteins, an intermediate mark-evaporation rate $k_{\rm off}$ produces a cusp in the fraction of the fiber visited per binding event, corresponding to searchers that locally open the globule and dive into its core. The authors conclude that chromophoresis is a generic nonequilibrium route to fast target search, potentially relevant to PARP-mediated lesion location.

Load-bearing premise

The mechanism requires that a bound protein deposit its mark at a rate of at least about once per second ($k_{\rm on} > D_{\rm 1D}/\sigma^2$); if real repair proteins modify histones more slowly than this, the unidirectional running state and the collapse-diving behavior would not occur in vivo.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A repair protein meeting the $k_{\rm on}$ threshold could locate a target on a human-sized chromosome in minutes rather than years, including targets buried inside collapsed heterochromatic globules.
  • Chromophoretic searchers are predicted to spread hyperuniformly, so each protein scans fresh chromatin rather than re-scanning marked trails, making search time scale favorably with searcher number.
  • An optimal mark-evaporation rate exists: too fast leaves the globule closed and too slow makes the fiber non-sticky, so cells could tune $k_{\rm off}$ to control search speed, for example in response to DNA damage.
  • The mechanism is generic: any DNA-binding protein that deposits a repulsive mark should show the same running and diving behavior, broadening the relevance beyond repair to transcription and silencing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Single-particle tracking of a marked-repelled protein on chromatin should reveal persistent, super-diffusive runs, a direct observational signature that the paper itself does not report.
  • Chemically slowing mark erasure should produce a non-monotonic change in lesion-search efficiency, a testable pharmacological prediction of the model.
  • Because the mechanism only requires a repulsive mark, proteins that deposit methylation or ubiquitylation marks could show the same running and diving dynamics, extending the PARP-centered biological framing.
  • The local chromatin swelling seen at DNA breaks may be caused by chromophoretic search itself rather than only by downstream signaling, which would make swelling a readout of search activity.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a nonequilibrium 'chromophoresis' mechanism for protein target search on chromatin: a DNA-binding protein deposits an epigenetic mark on nearby beads and is repelled from the mark it deposits, producing directed motion. In a 1D model the authors use Kramers theory to compute escape, hopping, and run-length rates, and show that sufficiently fast mark deposition kon > D1D/sigma^2 produces a unidirectional running state. In 3D Langevin simulations they report that multiple chromophoretic proteins spread along the fibre with suppressed density fluctuations, and that on a collapsed chromatin globule the proteins can locally unravel the globule and 'dive' into its core. The central quantitative claim is that there is an optimal mark-removal rate koff at which the fraction of the fibre visited per binding event is maximal, which the Conclusions phrase as having 'proved the existence of an optimal evaporation rate of epigenetic marks for which the exploration of the fibre is fastest.' The paper also speculates on relevance to PARylation and DNA repair.

Significance. If the central claims hold, chromophoresis would be a genuinely new and biologically suggestive search strategy, distinct from facilitated diffusion and applicable to collapsed chromatin where passive searches fail. The strengths of the paper include an analytic 1D Kramers derivation with an explicitly stated potential and no fitted target-search parameters, a clear separation between the 1D mechanistic argument and the 3D simulation phenomenology, and falsifiable predictions (hyperuniform spreading, an optimal koff, and globule diving). The proposed link to PARylation is speculative but appropriately framed. The main gap is that the headline measure of search efficiency is a visited-fraction proxy, not a measured search time to a target, and some collective claims are asserted without the standard quantitative diagnostics.

major comments (4)
  1. [3D Model, Fig. 5, Conclusions] The central claim that chromophoresis yields an optimal mark-removal rate for fastest target search is not directly supported by the data. Fig. 5A measures only the average fraction of fibre beads visited per binding/diving event, while Fig. 5B shows that the residence time on the fibre also changes at the same kc; coverage per event is not equivalent to a search rate, because event duration, detachment, and 3D rebinding all contribute to the mean search time. No target bead is placed in the simulations and no first-passage time to a target is reported, so the Conclusions sentence 'we proved the existence of an optimal evaporation rate... for which the exploration of the fibre is fastest' overstates what a nonmonotonic coverage curve from 10-20 simulations can establish. I recommend adding direct measurements of mean search time to a randomly placed target (or at least a rate combining coverage and event duration) and softening the 'proved' language.
  2. [Collective behaviours, Fig. 3 and following text] The hyperuniform-spreading claim is asserted but not quantitatively demonstrated. The text states that trail-mediated exclusion leads to 'hyperuniform spreading along the substrate' and suppressed 1D density fluctuations, yet Fig. 3 plots only the average number of bound proteins and an inset pair-correlation function; there is no measurement of the structure factor at small wavevectors or of the variance of particle number in intervals of increasing length, which are the standard diagnostics for hyperuniformity, and no error bars are shown. The claim that multiple proteins 'spread out along the fibre with suppressed 1D density fluctuations' therefore needs either a direct hyperuniformity diagnostic or a more modest formulation.
  3. [1D approximation] The speedup claim is argued from the run length lrun ~ (3/2) exp(epsilon/kBT) rather than from a target-search observable. Enlarging the distance covered per binding event is not by itself a proof of faster search, since a directed run has a finite duration, terminates in detachment, and is followed by 3D diffusion and rebinding; in a finite fibre with multiple particles, trails may also introduce temporal correlations. I ask for a direct comparison of mean first-passage time to a target for the chromophoretic model versus a symmetric random-walk (facilitated-diffusion) control in the same geometry, or an analytic calculation of the mean search time from the 1D rates.
  4. [1D approximation, parameter estimate] The biological feasibility of the running state rests on the condition kon > D1D/sigma^2 ~ 1 s^-1, which the authors acknowledge is 'compatible, albeit slightly faster' than typical modification rates. Since unidirectional motion and the diving phenomenon both depend on this threshold, the in vivo relevance claim is sensitive to this assumption; the manuscript should either provide more quantitative support for achievable kon values for relevant marks (e.g., PARylation) or explicitly frame the mechanism as requiring a kinetic regime whose biological occurrence remains to be demonstrated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: 'undirectional motion' should read 'unidirectional motion.'
  2. [Fig. 5 caption] In the caption, 'fraction of fibre visitided per dive' should read 'fraction of fibre visited per dive.'
  3. [1D approximation] The text gives lrun = B/2C e^(epsilon/kBT) with B and C defined only by approximate numerical prefactors; consider writing the dimensionless expression explicitly and numbering the equations, as several rates and inequalities are currently referenced only verbally.
  4. [Fig. 3] The inset showing the two-point correlation function has no labeled axes, and the direction of motion and normalization are not specified; please clarify.
  5. [Throughout] The manuscript uses both 'Kramer's' and 'Kramers' theory; please standardize to 'Kramers.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analytic run length is derived from Kramers rates on a stated potential, the optimal koff is an emergent simulation result, and self-citations are background context only.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the 1D analytic result is not circular: the run length lrun = B/2C e^(epsilon/kBT) is obtained from Kramers rates q, q+, and q- computed from the stated Lennard-Jones potential landscape, and no target-search outcome is used to define or fit these rates. The unidirectional running state is a consequence of the explicitly stated microscopic rules (deposition of a repulsive mark, tilting of the potential well), not a quantity fitted to a pre-chosen result. In the 3D collapsed-globule simulations, the non-monotonic dependence of the fraction of fibre visited per dive on koff (Fig. 5A) is an emergent finding: the paper describes both limits (koff -> infinity gives surface sticking; koff -> 0 gives detachment) and reports a cusp at an intermediate value, which is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The self-citations [12,18,21,28] are used as background for standard polymer models, estimates of D1D, and chemorepulsion phenomenology; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole load-bearing justification for the central claim. The skeptical concern that no target bead is placed and no first-passage time is measured is a validity critique about whether coverage per binding event is a sufficient proxy for search time, not a circularity: the paper does not define search time to be coverage per dive, and the conclusion that exploration is fastest is asserted from the coverage metric rather than made true by definition. Under the required standard of exhibiting a specific reduction of a predicted quantity to its own inputs, no such step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model's central claims depend on several chosen parameters (epsilon, kon, ko_ff) and on the assumed negative-feedback interaction between proteins and the marks they deposit. The Kramers derivation uses standard rate theory, while the biological feasibility rests on the assumption that kon is fast enough and that real proteins exhibit the repulsive response. The invented entity is a hypothetical class of proteins, not a measured one.

free parameters (3)
  • binding affinity epsilon = epsilon = 2, 4, 5 in simulations (units of kBT)
    Chosen by hand to set escape and hopping rates in the Kramers picture. The run length grows as exp(epsilon/kBT), so the predicted search speed depends exponentially on this choice.
  • mark deposition rate kon = kon = 10 (1D), 1 (3D), 0.1 (3D collapsed) in simulation units
    Must be large enough for the running state (kon >> q+ in the 1D derivation). The in vivo estimate kon > 1/s is acknowledged as slightly faster than typical modification rates, making biological feasibility a tuning assumption.
  • mark removal rate ko_ff = varied, e.g., 0.01, with an optimum around a critical value kc
    This is a scanned control parameter, not fitted to external data, but the central claim of an optimal evaporation rate depends on the existence of an intermediate range of ko_ff where diving occurs.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Kramers' rate theory applies to protein hopping between potential wells on the chromatin fibre.
    Used to derive hopping rates q, q+, and q- in the '1D approximation' section. The theory requires epsilon > kBT, which the paper assumes.
  • domain assumption The chromatin fibre can be represented as a flexible bead-and-spring polymer with beads of size 10-30 nm, and proteins as spherical beads of the same size.
    Justified by citation to previous chromatin models (Refs [21, 29-33]). The mapping from base pairs to beads is approximate and affects all quantitative results.
  • domain assumption Epigenetic marks deposited on a bead abolish the attraction between the protein and that bead, and marks evaporate at rate ko_ff.
    This negative feedback is the defining input of the model. The paper cites PARylation as a biological example, but no in vivo demonstration of mark-induced repulsion is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The mark deposition rate kon required for the running state (kon > D1D/sigma^2) is biologically achievable.
    The paper estimates this as > 1/s and notes typical acetylation/phosphorylation rates are min^-1 to s^-1, calling it 'compatible, albeit slightly faster'. This feasibility is load-bearing for the biological relevance claim.
invented entities (1)
  • Chromophoretic proteins (hypothetical class)
    purpose: Searcher proteins that deposit epigenetic marks from which they are repelled, generating unidirectional motion and diving into collapsed chromatin.
    No specific protein is identified or measured in the paper. PARP is suggested as a candidate, but the paper notes its role in lesion location is under debate, so this is a postulated mechanism without direct experimental support.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A nonequilibrium strategy for fast target search on the genome." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YMQFOCD4

@misc{pith2026190806671,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A nonequilibrium strategy for fast target search on the genome},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YMQFOCD4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06671}
}
read the original abstract

Vital biological processes such as genome repair require fast and efficient binding of selected proteins to specific target sites on DNA. Here we propose an active target search mechanism based on "chromophoresis", the dynamics of DNA-binding proteins up or down gradients in the density of epigenetic marks, or colours (biochemical tags on the genome). We focus on a set of proteins that deposit marks from which they are repelled---a case which is only encountered away from thermodynamic equilibrium. For suitable ranges of kinetic parameter values, chromophoretic proteins can perform unidirectional motion and are optimally redistributed along the genome. Importantly, they can also locally unravel a region of the genome which is collapsed due to self-interactions and "dive" deep into its core, for a striking enhancement of the efficiency of target search on such an inaccessible substrate. We discuss the potential relevance of chromophoresis for the location of DNA lesions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06671 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Chromophoretic search. A Proteins bind and diffuse along a fluctuating chromatin substrate (grey) search￾ing for a target (red). B Proteins deposit epigenetic marks (cyan) along the substrate at rate kon. The repulsion between proteins and the deposited marks results in directed motion and nontrivial collective behaviour. N spherical beads with viscous friction coefficient γ and are assumed, for simplicity, to have … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Chromophoretic collective behaviours. Av￾erage number of chromophoretic proteins bound and moving along the substrate for different values of total protein copy number N and mark removal rate koff . The black dashed line marks the limiting protein number L/ltrail discussed in the text: it provides an upper bound for hNoni. The inset shows the two-point correlation function in the direction of the protein motion (to … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Chromophoretic search on a collapsed sub￾strate. A Average fraction of the fibre visited in a single binding-unbinding, or “diving”, event as a function of koff for kon = 0.1 and /kBT = 5. Results are averaged over sev￾eral diving events and 10 − 20 independent simulations. B Fraction of time spent on the fibre over the total simulation time τ /T for different observation times T. In A and B the red dot-dashed line… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cortini, M

    R. Cortini, M. Barbi, B. R. Care, C. Lavelle, A. Lesne, J. Mozziconacci, and J.-M. Victor, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 1 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Rudolph, J

    J. Rudolph, J. Mahadevan, P. Dyer, and K. Luger, eLife 7, 1 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Q. Chen, M. A. Kassab, F. Dantzer, and X. Yu, Nature Communications 9 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Smeenk and H

    G. Smeenk and H. van Attikum, Annual Review of Bio- chemistry 82, 55 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    S. P. Jackson and J. Bartek, Nature461, 1071 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    P. H. Richter and M. Eigen, Biophysical Chemistry2, 255 (1974)

    work page 1974

  7. [7]

    M. Baum, F. Erdel, M. Wachsmuth, and K. Rippe, Na- ture Communications5, 1 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    C. M. Caragine, S. C. Haley, and A. Zidovska, Physical Review Letters121, 148101 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    W. L. Kraus and J. T. Lis, Cell113, 677 (2003)

    2003

  2. [10]

    L. A. Mirny, Chromosome research19, 37 (2011)

    2011

  3. [12]

    D.Michieletto, M.Chiang, D.Coli, A.Papantonis, E.Or- landini, P. R. Cook, and D. Marenduzzo, Nucleic Acids Res. 46, 83 (2018)

    2018

  4. [13]

    O. G. Berg, R. B. Winter, and P. H. von Hippel, Bio- chemistry 20, 6929 (1981)

    1981

  5. [14]

    A. B. Kolomeisky, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.13, 2088 (2011)

    2011

  6. [15]

    Slutsky,MIT Thesis, Ph.D

    M. Slutsky,MIT Thesis, Ph.D. thesis (2005)

    2005

  7. [16]

    Sheinman, O

    M. Sheinman, O. Bénichou, Y. Kafri, and R. Voituriez, Reports on Progress in Physics75, 026601 (2012)

    2012

  8. [17]

    S. E. Halford and J. F. Marko, Nucleic Acids Res.32, 3040 (2004)

    2004

  9. [18]

    C. A. Brackley, M. E. Cates, and D. Marenduzzo, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 168103 (2012)

    2012

  10. [19]

    C. A. Brackley, M. E. Cates, and D. Marenduzzo, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 1 (2013)

    2013

  11. [20]

    I. B. Dodd, M. A. Micheelsen, K. Sneppen, and G. Thon, Cell 129, 813 (2007)

    2007

  12. [21]

    Michieletto, E

    D. Michieletto, E. Orlandini, and D. Marenduzzo, Phys- ical Review X6, 041047 (2016)

    2016

  13. [22]

    Erdel and E

    F. Erdel and E. C. Greene, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 113, E4180 (2016)

    2016

  14. [23]

    Jost, Phys

    D. Jost, Phys. Rev. E89, 1 (2014)

    2014

  15. [24]

    B. A. Gibson and W. L. Kraus, Nature reviews Molecular cell biology13, 411 (2012)

    2012

  16. [25]

    A. R. Chaudhuri and A. Nussenzweig, Nature reviews Molecular cell biology18, 610 (2017)

    2017

  17. [26]

    Liebchen, D

    B. Liebchen, D. Marenduzzo, I. Pagonabarraga, and M. E. Cates, Physical review letters115, 258301 (2015)

    2015

  18. [27]

    S. Saha, R. Golestanian, and S. Ramaswamy, Physi- cal Review E - Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 89, 1 (2014)

    2014

  19. [28]

    Cagnetta, M

    F. Cagnetta, M. R. Evans, and D. Marenduzzo, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 258001 (2018)

    2018

  20. [29]

    Rosa and R

    A. Rosa and R. Everaers, PLoS computational biology4, 1 (2008)

    2008

  21. [31]

    D.Jost, P.Carrivain, G.Cavalli, andC.Vaillant,Nucleic Acids Res.42, 1 (2014)

    2014

  22. [32]

    Barbieri, J

    M. Barbieri, J. Fraser, M.-L. Lavitas, M. Chotalia, J. Dostie, A. Pombo, and M. Nicodemi, Nucleus4, 267 (2013)

    2013

  23. [33]

    Giorgetti, R

    L. Giorgetti, R. Galupa, E. P. Nora, T. Piolot, F. Lam, J. Dekker, G. Tiana, and E. Heard, Cell157, 950 (2014)

    2014

  24. [34]

    Plimpton, J

    S. Plimpton, J. Comp. Phys.117, 1 (1995)

    1995

  25. [35]

    H. A. Kramers, Physica7, 284 (1940)

    1940

  26. [36]

    AskBT = 1, we needϵ> 1 for Kramer’s picture to apply, hence q+ & 3

  27. [37]

    J. M. Sun, V. A. Spencer, H. Y. Chen, L. Li, and J. R. Davie, Methods31, 12 (2003)

    2003

  28. [38]

    Torquato, Physics Reports745, 1 (2018)

    S. Torquato, Physics Reports745, 1 (2018)

    2018

  29. [39]

    Lieberman-Aiden, N

    E. Lieberman-Aiden, N. L. Van Berkum, L. Williams, M. Imakaev, T. Ragoczy, A. Telling, I. Amit, B. R. La- joie, P. J. Sabo, M. O. Dorschner,et al., science326, 289 (2009)

    2009

  30. [40]

    A. N. Boettiger, B. Bintu, J. R. Moffitt, S. Wang, B. J. Beliveau, G. Fudenberg, M. Imakaev, L. A. Mirny, C.-t. Wu, and X. Zhuang, Nature529, 418 (2016)

    2016

  31. [41]

    C. A. Brackley, J. Johnson, S. Kelly, P. R. Cook, and D. Marenduzzo, Nucleic Acids Res.44, 3503 (2016)

    2016

  32. [42]

    C. A. Brackley, B. Liebchen, D. Michieletto, F. Mouvet, P. R. Cook, and D. Marenduzzo, Biophys J.112, 1085 (2017)

    2017

  33. [43]

    Erdel and K

    F. Erdel and K. Rippe, Biophysical journal114, 2262 (2018)

    2018

  34. [44]

    A. M. Chiariello, C. Annunziatella, S. Bianco, A. Espos- ito, and M. Nicodemi, Scientific reports6, 29775 (2016)

    2016

  35. [45]

    D.Jost, P.Carrivain, G.Cavalli, andC.Vaillant,Nucleic 6 acids research42, 9553 (2014)

    2014

  36. [46]

    Mirny, M

    L. Mirny, M. Slutsky, Z. Wunderlich, A. Tafvizi, J. Leith, and A. Kosmrlj, J Phys A42, 434013 (2009)

    2009

  37. [47]

    C. A. Brackley, S. Taylor, A. Papantonis, P. R. Cook, and D. Marenduzzo, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA110, E3605 (2013)

    2013

  38. [48]

    Barbieri, M

    M. Barbieri, M. Chotalia, J. Fraser, L.-M. Lavitas, J. Dostie, A. Pombo, and M. Nicodemi, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA109, 16173 (2012)

    2012

  39. [49]

    Le Treut, F

    G. Le Treut, F. Képès, and H. Orland, Biophysical Jour- nal 110, 51 (2016)

    2016

  40. [50]

    Kilic, A

    S. Kilic, A. L. Bachmann, L. C. Bryan, and B. Fierz, Nat. Commun.6, 7313 (2015)

    2015

  41. [51]

    Seeber, M

    A. Seeber, M. H. Hauer, and S. M. Gasser, Annual Re- view of Genetics52, 295 (2018)

    2018

  42. [52]

    G. G. Poirier, G. de Murcia, J. Jongstra-Bilen, C. Nieder- gang, and P. Mandel, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 79, 3423 (1982)

    1982

Pith tools

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