Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 57 references

A Quantum Circuit Framework for Protein Ensemble-Level Energetics

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

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

Pith's one-line read A static protein structure can be turned into a quantum circuit whose repeated measurement samples a thermodynamic ensemble of residue solvation states.

desk verdict A genuine new encoding and reproducible code, but the thermodynamic claim is unproven and the paper needs major revision to be publishable. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05491 v1 pith:ZW25DSFX submitted 2026-08-06 cs.ET q-bio.BMq-bio.MN

Pratik Patil , Bhushan Bonde , Bhaskar Choubey This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ETq-bio.BMq-bio.MN
keywords quantumcircuitproteinenergylandscapecoarse-grainedthermodynamicsresiduesolvationstatesGibbsdistributionsamplingcouplingTrp-cageensembleenergetics
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 claims that a static protein structure can be translated into a gate-based quantum circuit whose repeated measurement produces a thermodynamic ensemble of residue-level solvation states, rather than a single optimised fold. Each amino acid becomes a two-state qubit, stabilised or excited solvation state, with excitation propensities set by solvent-exposure-modulated transfer free energies, and correlated by controlled rotations that encode covalent and non-covalent contacts. The paper argues in Appendix A.9 that the sampled microstates follow the Gibbs distribution of this coarse-grained residue model, so energy histograms, residue occupancies, energetic sensitivities, and residue-coupling statistics are equilibrium observables at that resolution. On the Trp-cage systems 1L2Y and the cyclised chimera 9GDL, the framework produces a folding-funnel-like energy distribution, resolves construct-specific communication modules, and localises dominant energetic sites. If the claim holds, this gives a route to ensemble-level protein thermodynamics that avoids trajectory integration and Markov-chain equilibration, with potential use in mutation mapping and allosteric-site identification.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the probability-to-angle encoding $\theta=2\arcsin\sqrt p$ combined with a structure-derived directed-excitation ansatz. Solvent exposure and transfer free energies set an independent excitation probability $p_r$ per residue, prepared by single-qubit $R_Y$ rotations; a graph of residue couplings $K_{ij}$, combining weighted peptide, disulfide, hydrogen-bond, salt-bridge, and van der Waals terms, defines which pairs exchange excitation; a directional bias $\nu_{i\to j}$ computed from local excitation potentials sets the transfer tendency; and the product is mapped to controlled-$R_Y$ angles, with a symmetric Ising $YY$ correction for near-degenerate pairs. The variational-free-energy descent argument in Appendix A.9 is what converts this gate construction from an ansatz into a claim of Gibbs-distribution sampling: the functional $\mathcal F_\beta[P]=\sum_{\mathbf z}P(\mathbf z)G_{\mathrm{model}}(\mathbf z)+\frac1\beta\sum_{\mathbf z}P(\mathbf z)\ln P(\mathbf z)$ is minimised by the Gibbs distribution, and each directed transfer step is argued to lower it.

What would settle it

For a small test system such as 1L2Y, specify the model energy $G_{\mathrm{model}}$ exactly, compute the Boltzmann weights $P_\beta(\mathbf z)\propto\exp[-\beta G_{\mathrm{model}}(\mathbf z)]$ by exhaustive enumeration of the $2^{20}$ configurations, and compare the circuit's empirical distribution from $\sim 10^6$ shots by total-variation distance or Kullback-Leibler divergence. If the divergence does not shrink toward zero as the free-energy residual is reduced, or if after convergence the active edges still retain large potential imbalances $\mu_i-\mu_j$, the central thermodynamic-consistency claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a circuit construction whose sampled distribution is intended to be $P_\beta(\mathbf z)\propto\exp[-\beta G_{\mathrm{model}}(\mathbf z)]$, the Gibbs distribution of the structure-conditioned two-state residue model. The effective model energy separates as $G_{\mathrm{model}}=G_0+G_{\mathrm{int}}$: $G_0$ is the independent-residue solvation score built from water-to-octanol transfer free energies and relative solvent exposure, and $G_{\mathrm{int}}$ is the correlation contribution imprinted by the entangling interaction layers. The scoring Hamiltonian $\hat H_{\mathrm{tot}}=\sum_r(a_r\hat I_r+b_r\hat Z_r)$ is deliberately diagonal, so all cooperativity enters through the entangled state and the sampled probabilities, not through an explicit $\hat Z_r\hat Z_{r'}$ term. The thermodynamic-consistency argument runs through the variational free energy: under the interpretation that each controlled-$R_Y$ gate transfers excitation from a residue of higher local excitation potential to one of lower potential, every interaction layer lowers $\mathcal F_\beta[P]$, and a small free-energy residual bounds the total-variation distance between the circuit distribution and the Gibbs distribution. Consequently the outputs, including energy histograms, ground-state occupancies, conditional-KL sensitivities, directional excitation information, and dimer/trimer motif affinities, are presented as equilibrium thermodynamic observables of the coarse-grained model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each controlled-$R_Y$ gate in the entanglement block actually implements a probability transfer from the higher-potential residue to the lower-potential residue, so every interaction layer lowers the variational free energy and the finite-depth circuit approaches the Gibbs distribution; the paper labels this an interpretation in Appendix A.9.2 and does not prove that the Born probabilities realise those marginal updates.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For 1L2Y, the circuit-sampled energy distribution shows a folding-funnel-like shape with multiple low-energy peaks, an intermediate shoulder, and a diffuse high-energy tail, while 9GDL samples a broader and lower-energy regime under the same scoring rule.
  • Residue conditioning reveals a Trp-centred energetic control region, Trp6 in 1L2Y and Trp11 in 9GDL, that is distinct from the locally labile Gly/Pro/Ser segments, separating energetic control from local flexibility.
  • Directional excitation information identifies a communication module in the Gly-Pro-Ser region, with Pro12 feeding Ser13 and Ser14 in 1L2Y and Pro17 feeding Ser18 in 9GDL, and dimer and trimer motif maps retain these signals after aggregation, indicating network-level rather than isolated correlations.
  • Applying the same construction to apo, ligand-bound, wild-type, and mutant structures would expose changes in stability profiles and long-range couplings that could point to allosteric sites.
  • By sampling independent shots from a correlated state rather than propagating trajectories, the method avoids explicit barrier crossing and Markov-chain mixing-time limitations, a scaling argument the paper develops against molecular dynamics and Monte Carlo baselines.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's appendix states the probability-redistribution reading as an interpretation, not a theorem; a direct numerical test comparing the circuit's empirical distribution to the exact Boltzmann weights of the stated model would settle whether the gates really implement free-energy descent.
  • Because the coarse-grained variable is a single solvation-state bit per residue, implications about allostery should be read as hypotheses about residue-state coupling; mutating the implicated residues and checking whether the circuit's coupling maps shift would be a natural extension.
  • The framework's own scaling discussion implies that its near-term value is as an interpretable generative model, since classical simulation is tractable at these system sizes; a genuine quantum advantage would require larger, densely connected contact networks whose output distributions resist tensor-network simulation.
  • Running the same circuit construction over an NMR ensemble of structures instead of a single PDB snapshot, which the paper identifies as future work, could give quantitative estimates of metastable-state populations by stitching basin ensembles together.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a gate-based quantum circuit framework for coarse-grained protein thermodynamics. Each residue is mapped to a qubit whose initial excitation probability is set by transfer free energies and SASA-based exposure; a structure-derived interaction graph parametrizes controlled-RY and IsingYY gates; repeated measurement yields binary microstates scored with a diagonal residue Hamiltonian. The authors apply the workflow to Trp-cage 1L2Y and 9GDL and report energy distributions, residue sensitivities, directional excitation information, and motif-level affinities. The central claim (Sec. 2.6 and Appendix A.9) is that the circuit samples the Gibbs distribution of a structure-conditioned residue model, making the output observables equilibrium thermodynamic quantities. The manuscript includes a detailed reproducibility appendix and code repository.

Significance. If the central Gibbs-sampling claim were established, the framework would offer an interesting route to ensemble-level residue statistics from a static structure, and the reproducibility practices (public code, configuration files, random-seed documentation, honest discussion of NISQ limitations) are commendable. However, the paper does not deliver the machinery needed to support the thermodynamic interpretation. The only validation is qualitative agreement with known Trp-cage features, and the funnel-like histogram is largely a consequence of the construction itself. Because the main contribution is framed as thermodynamic consistency, the unsupported nature of that claim substantially reduces the paper's significance in its current form.

major comments (4)
  1. [A.9.2–A.9.3, Eqs. (2.6.1), (A.9.9), (A.9.14)] The thermodynamic-consistency claim rests on an assumed probability-redistribution interpretation that is never demonstrated. Equation (A.9.9) defines a classical update p_i -> p_i - delta, p_j -> p_j + delta, while Eq. (A.9.14) introduces G_model(z)=G_0(z)+G_int(z) without ever defining G_int. The implemented scoring operator in Eq. (2.6.1) is strictly diagonal and contains no coupling term. Consequently there is no explicit interacting Hamiltonian whose Gibbs distribution the circuit could be approximating, and the controlled-RY and IsingYY gates are not shown to implement the marginal updates that the variational argument requires. The paper explicitly concedes this in A.9.2: "A complete proof that the finite-depth unitary circuit converges to the interacting Gibbs distribution would additionally require demonstrating that the resulting Born probabilities realise these marginal updates and that the variational free-energy residual is minimised." This gap is load-bearing: without it the circuit is a parameterized generative model, not a Boltzmann sampler.
  2. [A.9.2, Eq. (A.9.24)] Equation (A.9.24) asserts that a complete interaction layer decreases the variational free energy because each directed update satisfies Eq. (A.9.12). However, Eq. (A.9.12) is derived for a classical probability vector, not for the Born distribution produced by the implemented unitary gates. Unitary rotations do not in general act as marginal probability transfers, and the effect of a CRY gate on the individual residue marginals is never computed. The IsingYY gate introduced in Eq. (2.5.8) conserves the pair's excitation parity and is not a directed transfer, so it cannot be guaranteed to follow the same free-energy-descent direction. The convergence to the stationary condition mu_i = mu_j (Eq. A.9.25) and the epsilon bound in Eq. (A.9.29) are therefore not established.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (2.2.3), (2.5.1), (2.6.1)] The funnel-like energy distribution reported in Fig. 3.2 is to a significant degree an artifact of the construction. The initial excitation probabilities p_r are computed from Delta G_eff in Eq. (2.2.3); the same energy gaps are used to define the effective local potential mu_i in Eq. (2.5.1) that sets the CRY transfer schedule; and the scoring Hamiltonian in Eq. (2.6.1) is built from the same E_0,r and E_1,r. Thus configurations that score as low-energy are high-probability by construction, so the histogram shape cannot be taken as evidence that the circuit reproduces a physical folding funnel. The paper provides no comparison against molecular dynamics, experimental observables, or an exact Gibbs distribution of an independently defined residue-level model.
  4. [Sec. 2.5, A.3, A.8] Gate-ordering sensitivity is acknowledged in Appendix A.3 but not quantified. Appendix A.8 specifies one fixed deterministic ordering and sets the number of interaction layers to L=1. Because overlapping CRY gates do not commute in general (Eq. A.3.3), the sampled energy distribution, residue occupancies, and coupling statistics may depend on the arbitrary gate order. Since the paper makes comparative claims about 1L2Y and 9GDL, a sensitivity analysis over alternative orderings (or a demonstration that the chosen ordering is representative) is needed to show that the reported patterns are robust.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2.5.4)] The normalization denominator sum over k in N(i), N(j) is ambiguous; it should be written as a union or as separate sums to make the directed transfer probability well-defined.
  2. [Fig. 3.2 caption] The two histograms use different bin widths, making the raw counts non-comparable; please report normalized densities on a common binning or justify the comparative reading.
  3. [A.9.3, after Eq. (A.9.29)] The sentence "if the variational free-energy error satisfies F_beta <= epsilon" should read "F_beta[P_theta] - F_beta <= epsilon", since F_beta is the exact minimum and not the trial free energy.
  4. [Sec. 4] The statement that the state is represented using O(N x M) qubits on fault-tolerant hardware is confusing; circuit width is O(N), and the number of shots M is a sampling resource, not a qubit count.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Thermodynamic-consistency claim reduces to an undefined G_int and an assumed probability-transfer interpretation of CRY gates; the funnel-shaped energy distribution is largely a restatement of the input transfer-energy table.

  1. self definitional [Appendix A.9.3, Eqs. (A.9.14)-(A.9.15); used in the closing claim of A.9.3]
    "The energy score assigned to a residue-state configuration z is written as G_model(z)=G_0(z)+G_int(z). ... For this interacting model, let P_beta(z) denote the equilibrium probability ... P_beta(z)= exp[-beta G_model(z)]/Z_beta."

    G_int is never defined anywhere in the paper, and the only implemented scoring Hamiltonian (Eq. 2.6.1) is explicitly diagonal with no interaction term. The target interacting Gibbs distribution is therefore not an independently specified object. Any empirical circuit distribution P can be written as exp(-beta G_model)/Z for some suitably chosen G_model = G_0 + G_int, so the statement that the circuit samples the Gibbs distribution of the model is satisfiable by construction for every output distribution. The subsequent inference that energy distributions, occupancies, sensitivities, and couplings are equilibrium thermodynamic observables therefore rests on an undefined, self-referential target rather than on a derived equivalence.

  2. other [Appendix A.9.2, Eqs. (A.9.9)-(A.9.12) and following concession]
    "Because the directed update is accepted only while mu_i(s)>mu_j(s), the integrand ... is non-negative throughout the path, and therefore F_beta(p prime) <= F_beta(p). ... A complete proof that the finite-depth unitary circuit converges to the interacting Gibbs distribution would additionally require demonstrating that the resulting Born probabilities realise these marginal updates and that the variational free-energy residual is minimised."

    The free-energy descent inequality is proved for a classical probability vector updated by moving delta from i to j. The implemented CRY gate is not such a marginal transfer: a controlled rotation preserves the control qubit marginal probability and changes joint amplitudes, and it can increase total excitation (e.g., CRY from |10> to a superposition with |11>). The paper explicitly concedes that no connection between the Born probabilities and the p_i-delta, p_j+delta update has been demonstrated. The variational argument therefore assumes precisely the property needed to conclude that the circuit optimizes toward a Gibbs distribution, making the central thermodynamic-consistency argument circular with respect to the implemented gates.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 2.2 Eq. (2.2.3); Sec. 2.5 Eqs. (2.5.1)-(2.5.4); Sec. 2.6 Eqs. (2.6.1)-(2.6.3); Fig. 4.1]
    "The excitation propensity p_r is then obtained from a two-level Boltzmann partition: p_r = exp[-beta_T DeltaG_r^eff]/(1+exp[-beta_T DeltaG_r^eff]). ... The total energy assigned to a sampled microstate was computed as a diagonal residue-wise Hamiltonian, H_tot = sum_r (E_{0,r}|0_r><0_r| + E_{1,r}|1_r><1_r|). ... Here, excitation transfer happens from a residue with larger effective excitation potential to a residue with smaller effective excitation potential."

    The same transfer-free-energy data define both the initial excitation probabilities and the energy score of every sampled microstate, and the CRY transfer direction mu_i = beta p_i DeltaG_i is explicitly constructed to move excitation from high-DeltaG to low-DeltaG residues. Consequently the low-energy, funnel-like histogram of Fig. 4.1 is largely forced by the input energetics: high-DeltaG residues start mostly in the ground state and are further de-excited by the entanglement block, so the low-energy concentration is an engineered restatement of the input table rather than an independent reproduction of a rugged landscape. No external or independent energy observable is used that could falsify the resulting distribution.

full rationale

Circularity is concentrated in the thermodynamic-consistency argument, not in the code or data handling. The implemented Hamiltonian (Eq. 2.6.1) is diagonal and contains no coupling term, yet Appendix A.9.3 defines the target Gibbs distribution through G_model = G_0 + G_int without ever specifying G_int. Since any empirical distribution can be written as a Gibbs distribution for some suitably chosen G_int, the statement that the circuit samples the Gibbs distribution of the model is true by construction rather than by derivation; the subsequent claim that residue occupancies, energetic sensitivities, and coupling statistics are equilibrium thermodynamic observables inherits this self-definition. Appendix A.9.2 attempts to supply the missing convergence by proving free-energy descent for a classical probability-transfer update, but the paper itself concedes that it has not shown that the Born probabilities of the CRY/IsingYY gates realise those marginal updates. The funnel-like energy histogram is also heavily determined by the input transfer energies: the same DeltaG and E values fix p_r, define the CRY transfer direction from high-mu to low-mu residues, and score the sampled states, so the low-energy concentration is an output of the ansatz rather than an independent result. No self-citation chain is load-bearing, and the numerical implementation is reproducible, so the circularity is internal to the claimed equilibrium interpretation rather than a citation-scheme artifact.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the two-state solvation representation is a modeling abstraction. The central claim depends on many hand-set coupling weights, cutoffs, thresholds, and schedule parameters, plus a domain assumption that a static PDB structure represents an equilibrium basin and that directed CRY gates implement free-energy descent.

free parameters (12)
  • Structural coupling weights w_BB, w_SS, w_HB, w_salt, w_vdW = 1.00, 1.00, 0.50, 0.40, 0.05
    Hand-chosen relative priors for backbone, disulfide, H-bond, salt-bridge, and vdW terms (Eq. A.6.2). They determine which residue pairs enter the entanglement block and the gate angles.
  • Structural distance cutoffs = 1.8, 2.3, 3.5, 4.0, 4.0 Å
    Set by hand for peptide, disulfide, H-bond, salt, and vdW contacts; controls K_ij sparsity and hence the interaction graph (Appendix A.6).
  • Weak-drive threshold tau_YY = 0.02
    Pairs with |Delta_eff| <= 0.02 receive symmetric Ising YY gates instead of directed CRY (Eq. 2.5.7).
  • YY angle cap Theta_cap = pi/6
    Bounds the Ising YY rotation to keep it a light correction rather than a competing transfer channel (Eq. 2.5.8).
  • Entanglement schedule gamma = 0.95
    Discounting factor for sorting and discounting directed transfer probabilities (Table A.2).
  • beta in entanglement schedule = 1.0
    Used in mu_i = beta Delta G_i p_i (Table A.2); its relation to beta_T = 1/(RT) in Eq. 2.2.3 is not clarified.
  • phi_cap = pi/2
    Cap for controlled rotation angles in the entanglement schedule (Table A.2).
  • Exposure floor alpha = 0.1
    Prevents degeneracy for neutral residues with near-zero SASA in the intermediate hydrophobicity branch (Eq. 2.2.2).
  • KD hydrophobicity thresholds = 0.5 and -0.5
    Branches in the effective excitation gap depend on Kyte-Doolittle hydrophobicity thresholds (Eq. 2.2.2).
  • Temperature T = 300 K
    Used in the Boltzmann initialization; the paper calls it a parametrisation rather than a hard constraint (Sec. 2.2).
  • sigma_omega (frequency-matching width) = estimated from data
    Estimated from the standard deviation of stiffness/mass frequencies when not supplied, which makes it data-dependent (Appendix A.6).
  • Interaction layers L = 1
    One full interaction layer is executed; repeatability is a model hyperparameter not calibrated to physical timescales (Appendix A.8).
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Born rule and RY probability-to-angle encoding
    Used to prepare single-qubit excitation probabilities from the Boltzmann weights (Appendix A.2).
  • domain assumption Static PDB structure represents an equilibrium folded basin
    Appendix A.9 states this as the first assumption; all structure-derived contacts and SASA are computed from this single structure.
  • domain assumption Water-to-octanol transfer free energies are effective residue excitation gaps
    Sec. 2.2 assigns E0 and E1 from Fauchère-Pliska transfer energies; the validity of this mapping to protein solvation states is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper Directed excitation transfer along mu_i - mu_j decreases variational free energy
    Eq. A.9.11-A.9.12; the proof assumes a probability-redistribution interpretation that is not shown to be realized by the CRY gates.
  • domain assumption Two-state per residue representation captures ensemble energetics
    The authors note in Sec. 4.1 that a binary representation cannot resolve rotamers, dihedrals, or secondary-structure order parameters.
  • domain assumption Diagonal Hamiltonian H_tot is the correct scoring function despite correlated sampling
    Sec. 2.6 argues cooperativity enters through Born probabilities rather than through explicit coupling terms in H_tot; this is a modelling choice.
  • ad hoc to paper Circuit distribution approximates Gibbs distribution within small variational free-energy error epsilon
    Appendix A.9.3 assumes an epsilon bound without computing epsilon or optimizing the circuit parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Quantum Circuit Framework for Protein Ensemble-Level Energetics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZW25DSFX

@misc{pith2026260805491,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Quantum Circuit Framework for Protein Ensemble-Level Energetics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZW25DSFX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05491}
}
abstract

Proteins occupy heterogeneous free-energy landscapes in which high-entropy ensembles converge toward compact, low-energy basins with multiple sub-states. Molecular dynamics can access these landscapes at atomic resolution, but exhaustive sampling remains computationally demanding. Meanwhile, most quantum approaches target only single optimal structures, leaving full ensemble energetic heterogeneity unexplored. We introduce a residue-level, gate-based quantum circuit framework for coarse-graining protein thermodynamics. Each amino acid is represented as a two-state qubit (stabilised vs. excited solvation state) based on residue solvation energetics. A structure-informed entanglement block then encodes covalent and non-covalent contacts using parameterised controlled gates, embedding correlations across the residue-interaction network. Sampling the circuit ($\sim 10^6$ measurements) yields binary thermodynamic microstates used to compute protein energy distributions, residue-level statistical couplings, energetic sensitivities, and information gains relative to total free energy. We showcase the framework on the benchmark Trp-cage miniprotein 1L2Y (TC5b) and 9GDL, a disulfide-stabilised Trp-cage-fortified exenatide chimera. For 1L2Y, the circuit reproduces a structured, folding-funnel-like energy distribution. Comparative analysis with 9GDL reveals shifts in global energy distributions and residue-level stability profiles. Coupling and information-theoretic analyses localise residues associated with ensemble reorganisation, while multi-body couplings show the circuit resolves both direct and indirect statistical correlations. This framework expands quantum protein modelling beyond single-structure optimisation toward ensemble-level characterisation, capturing key features of rugged energy landscapes to guide protein design, mutation mapping, and allosteric pathway identification.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05491 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dynamic personalities of proteins,

    K. Henzler-Wildman and D. Kern, “Dynamic personalities of proteins,”Nature, vol. 450, no. 7172, pp. 964–972, Dec 2007. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06522

    doi:10.1038/nature06522 2007

  2. [2]

    The role of dynamic conformational ensembles in biomolecular recognition,

    D. D. Boehr, R. Nussinov, and P. E. Wright, “The role of dynamic conformational ensembles in biomolecular recognition,”Nature Chemical Biology, vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 789–796, Nov 2009. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.232

    work page doi:10.1038/nchembio.232 2009

  3. [3]

    Energy landscape of conformational changes for a single unmodified protein,

    M. Peters, T. Zhao, S. Georgeet al., “Energy landscape of conformational changes for a single unmodified protein,”npj Biosensing, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 14, Nov 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44328-024-00014-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s44328-024-00014-x 2024

  4. [4]

    Theory of protein folding: The energy landscape perspective,

    J. N. Onuchic, Z. Luthey-Schulten, and P. G. Wolynes, “Theory of protein folding: The energy landscape perspective,”Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, vol. 48, no. Volume 48, 1997, pp. 545–600, 1997. [Online]. Available: https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10. 1146/annurev.physchem.48.1.545

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    Navigating the folding routes,

    P. G. Wolynes, J. N. Onuchic, and D. Thirumalai, “Navigating the folding routes,”Science, vol. 267, no. 5204, pp. 1619–1620, 1995. [Online]. Available: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10. 1126/science.7886447

    work page 1995

  6. [6]

    The protein-folding problem, 50 years on,

    K. A. Dill and J. L. MacCallum, “The protein-folding problem, 50 years on,”Science, vol. 338, no. 6110, pp. 1042–1046, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10. 1126/science.1219021

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Conformational dynamics and ensembles in protein folding,

    V. Muñoz, “Conformational dynamics and ensembles in protein folding,”Annual Review of Biophysics, vol. 36, no. Volume 36, 2007, pp. 395–412, 2007. [Online]. Available: https: //www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.biophys.36.040306.132608 19

    work page arXiv 2007

  8. [8]

    The ensemble nature of allostery,

    H. N. Motlagh, J. O. Wrabl, J. Li, and V. J. Hilser, “The ensemble nature of allostery,”Nature, vol. 508, no. 7496, pp. 331–339, Apr 2014. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13001

    doi:10.1038/nature13001 2014

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Principles of protein structural ensemble determination,

    M. Bonomi, G. T. Heller, C. Camilloni, and M. Vendruscolo, “Principles of protein structural ensemble determination,”Current Opinion in Structural Biology, vol. 42, pp. 106–116, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959440X16302330

    2017

  2. [10]

    Molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules,

    M. Karplus and J. A. McCammon, “Molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules,” Nature Structural Biology, vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 646–652, Sep 2002. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/nsb0902-646

    2002 doi

  3. [11]

    Enhancing important fluctuations: Rare events and metadynamics from a conceptual viewpoint,

    O. Valsson, P. Tiwary, and M. Parrinello, “Enhancing important fluctuations: Rare events and metadynamics from a conceptual viewpoint,”Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, vol. 67, no. Volume 67, 2016, pp. 159–184, 2016. [Online]. Available: https: //www.annualreviews.org/cont...

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    Bonde, P

    B. Bonde, P. Patil, and B. Choubey,The Future of Drug Development with Quantum Computing. New York, NY: Springer US, 2024, pp. 153–179. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-3449-3_7

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Sampling rare conformational transitions with a quantum computer,

    D. Ghamari, P. Hauke, R. Covino, and P. Faccioli, “Sampling rare conformational transitions with a quantum computer,”Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 16336, Sep 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20032-x

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    Sampling a rare protein transition using quantum annealing,

    D. Ghamari, R. Covino, and P. Faccioli, “Sampling a rare protein transition using quantum annealing,”Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 3322–3334, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.3c01174

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Babbush, A

    R. Babbush, A. Perdomo-Ortiz, B. O’Gorman, W. Macready, and A. Aspuru-Guzik,Construction of Energy Functions for Lattice Heteropolymer Models: Efficient Encodings for Constraint Satisfaction Programming and Quantum Annealing. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2014, ch. 5, pp. 201–244. [...

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    Resource-efficient quantum algorithm for protein folding,

    A. Robert, P. K. Barkoutsos, S. Woerner, and I. Tavernelli, “Resource-efficient quantum algorithm for protein folding,”npj Quantum Inf., vol. 7, no. 38, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-021-00368-4

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    Quantum algorithm for protein structure prediction using the face-centered cubic lattice,

    R.-H. Li, H. Doga, B. Raubenoltet al., “Quantum algorithm for protein structure prediction using the face-centered cubic lattice,”ArXiv preprint, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08955

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Finding low-energy conformations of lattice protein models by quantum annealing,

    A. Perdomo-Ortiz, N. Dickson, M. Drew-Brook, G. Rose, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “Finding low-energy conformations of lattice protein models by quantum annealing,”Scientific Reports, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 571, Aug 2012. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00571

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    Peptide conformational sampling using the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm,

    S. Boulebnane, X. Lucas, A. Meyder, S. Adaszewski, and A. Montanaro, “Peptide conformational sampling using the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 70, jul 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-023-00733-5

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Capturing protein free energy landscape using efficient quantum encoding,

    A. Kannan, J. V. Pamidimukkala, A. Dakshinamoorthy, S. Bopardikar, K. Dasgupta, and S. Senapati, “Capturing protein free energy landscape using efficient quantum encoding,”ArXiv preprint, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.15316 20

    2025

  13. [21]

    Quantum sampling architecture for protein structure reconstruction on utility-scale hardware,

    Y. Zhang, B. Fang, Y. Yanget al., “Quantum sampling architecture for protein structure reconstruction on utility-scale hardware,”arXiv preprint, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.06971

    2026 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hydrophobic parameters 𝜋 of amino acid side-chains from the partitioning of n-acetyl-amino acid amides,

    J. Fauchere and V. Pliska, “Hydrophobic parameters 𝜋 of amino acid side-chains from the partitioning of n-acetyl-amino acid amides,”Eur. J. Med. Chem., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 369–375, Jan 1983. [Online]. Avail- able: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246404378_Hydrophobic_...

    1983

  15. [23]

    Maximum allowed solvent accessibilites of residues in proteins,

    M. Z. Tien, A. G. Meyer, D. K. Sydykova, S. J. Spielman, and C. O. Wilke, “Maximum allowed solvent accessibilites of residues in proteins,”PLOS ONE, vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 1–8, 11 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080635

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    Freesasa: An open source C library for solvent accessible surface area calculations,

    S. Mitternacht, “Freesasa: An open source C library for solvent accessible surface area calculations,”F1000Res, vol. 5, p. 189, Feb 2016. [Online]. Available: https: //f1000research.com/articles/5-189/v1

    2016

  17. [25]

    A simple method for displaying the hydropathic character of a protein,

    J. Kyte and R. F. Doolittle, “A simple method for displaying the hydropathic character of a protein,”Journal of Molecular Biology, vol. 157, no. 1, pp. 105–132, 1982. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022283682905150

    1982

  18. [26]

    Large amplitude elastic motions in proteins from a single-parameter, atomic analysis,

    M. M. Tirion, “Large amplitude elastic motions in proteins from a single-parameter, atomic analysis,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 77, pp. 1905–1908, Aug 1996. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.1905

    1905 doi

  19. [27]

    Gaussian dynamics of folded proteins,

    T. Haliloglu, I. Bahar, and B. Erman, “Gaussian dynamics of folded proteins,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 79, pp. 3090–3093, Oct 1997. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.79.3090

    1997

  20. [28]

    Anisotropy of fluctuation dynamics of proteins with an elastic network model,

    A. Atilgan, S. Durell, R. Jernigan, M. Demirel, O. Keskin, and I. Bahar, “Anisotropy of fluctuation dynamics of proteins with an elastic network model,”Biophysical Journal, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 505–515, 2001. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pi...

    2001

  21. [29]

    Anisotropic network model: systematic evaluation and a new web interface,

    E. Eyal, L.-W. Yang, and I. Bahar, “Anisotropic network model: systematic evaluation and a new web interface,”Bioinformatics, vol. 22, no. 21, pp. 2619–2627, 11 2006. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btl448

    2006 doi

  22. [30]

    Through bonds or contacts? mapping protein vibrational energy transfer using non-canonical amino acids,

    E. Deniz, L. Valiño-Borau, J. G. Löffleret al., “Through bonds or contacts? mapping protein vibrational energy transfer using non-canonical amino acids,”Nature Communications, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 3284, Jun 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23591-1

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    Energy flow in proteins,

    D. M. Leitner, “Energy flow in proteins,”Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, vol. 59, no. Volume 59, 2008, pp. 233–259, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://www.annualreviews.org/ content/journals/10.1146/annurev.physchem.59.032607.093606

    2008 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Anisotropic energy flow and allosteric ligand binding in albumin,

    G. Li, D. Magana, and R. B. Dyer, “Anisotropic energy flow and allosteric ligand binding in albumin,”Nature Communications, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 3100, Jan 2014. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4100

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    Thermally activated coupling between protein vibrations and interfacial water dynamics revealed by terahertz spectroscopy,

    N. Q. Singh, Abhishek K.and Vinh, “Thermally activated coupling between protein vibrations and interfacial water dynamics revealed by terahertz spectroscopy,”iScience, vol. 29, no. 6, Jun

  26. [34]

    Mdanalysisnalysis: A toolkit for the analysis of molecular dynamics simulations,

    N. Michaud-Agrawal, E. J. Denning, T. B. Woolf, and O. Beckstein, “Mdanalysisnalysis: A toolkit for the analysis of molecular dynamics simulations,”Journal of Computational Chemistry, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 2319–2327, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/do...

    2011 doi

  27. [35]

    MDAnalysis: A Python Package for the Rapid Analysis of Molecular Dynamics Simulations,

    Richard J. Gowers, Max Linke, Jonathan Barnoudet al., “MDAnalysis: A Python Package for the Rapid Analysis of Molecular Dynamics Simulations,” inProceedings of the 15th Python in Science Conference, Sebastian Benthall and Scott Rostrup, Eds., 2016, pp. 98 – 105. [Online]. Avai...

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations,

    V. Bergholm, J. Izaac, M. Schuldet al., “Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical computations,”ArXiv preprint, 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/1811.04968

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Designing a 20-residue protein,

    J. W. Neidigh, R. M. Fesinmeyer, and N. H. Andersen, “Designing a 20-residue protein,” Nature Structural Biology, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 425–430, Jun 2002. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/nsb798

    2002 doi

  30. [38]

    A kinetic model of trp-cage folding from multiple biased molecular dynamics simulations,

    F. Marinelli, F. Pietrucci, A. Laio, and S. Piana, “A kinetic model of trp-cage folding from multiple biased molecular dynamics simulations,”PLOS Computational Biology, vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 1–18, 08 2009. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000452

    2009 doi

  31. [39]

    Dynamic folding pathway models of the trp-cage protein,

    I.-H. Lee and S.-Y. Kim, “Dynamic folding pathway models of the trp-cage protein,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2013, no. 1, p. 973867, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1155/2013/973867

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    Influence of trp-cage on the function and stability of glp-1r agonist exenatide derivatives,

    D. Horváth, P. Stráner, N. Taricska, Z. Fazekas, D. K. Menyhárd, and A. Perczel, “Influence of trp-cage on the function and stability of glp-1r agonist exenatide derivatives,”Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 67, no. 18, pp. 16757–16772, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://d...

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Adaptive sampling methods for molecular dynamics in the era of machine learning,

    D. E. Kleiman, H. Nadeem, and D. Shukla, “Adaptive sampling methods for molecular dynamics in the era of machine learning,”The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, vol. 127, no. 50, pp. 10669–10681, 12 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.3c04843

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines,

    N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, “Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines,”The Journal of Chemical Physics, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1087–1092, 06 1953. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1699114

    1953 doi

  35. [43]

    Replica monte carlo simulation of spin-glasses,

    R. H. Swendsen and J.-S. Wang, “Replica monte carlo simulation of spin-glasses,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 57, pp. 2607–2609, Nov 1986. [Online]. Available: https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.57.2607

    1986 doi

  36. [44]

    Simulated tempering: A new monte carlo scheme,

    E. Marinari and G. Parisi, “Simulated tempering: A new monte carlo scheme,” Europhysics Letters, vol. 19, no. 6, p. 451, jul 1992. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/19/6/002

    1992 doi

  37. [45]

    Chapter 3 - markov and bayesian networks: Two graphical representations of probabilistic knowledge,

    J. Pearl, “Chapter 3 - markov and bayesian networks: Two graphical representations of probabilistic knowledge,” inProbabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems. San Francisco (CA): Morgan Kaufmann, 1988, pp. 77–141. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/...

    1988

  38. [46]

    Stochastic relaxation, gibbs distributions, and the bayesian restoration of images,

    S. Geman and D. Geman, “Stochastic relaxation, gibbs distributions, and the bayesian restoration of images,”IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 6, no. 6, p. 721–741, Nov

  39. [47]

    Direct-coupling analysis of residue coevolution captures native contacts across many protein families,

    F. Morcos, A. Pagnani, B. Luntet al., “Direct-coupling analysis of residue coevolution captures native contacts across many protein families,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 108, no. 49, pp. E1293–E1301, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://www.pnas.org/doi...

    2011 doi

  40. [48]

    Efficient tensor network simulation of ibm’s eagle kicked ising experiment,

    J. Tindall, M. Fishman, E. M. Stoudenmire, and D. Sels, “Efficient tensor network simulation of ibm’s eagle kicked ising experiment,”PRX Quantum, vol. 5, p. 010308, Jan 2024. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.010308

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    Fast and converged classical simulations of evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance,

    T. Begušić, J. Gray, and G. K.-L. Chan, “Fast and converged classical simulations of evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance,”Science Advances, vol. 10, no. 3, p. eadk4321, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/sciadv. adk4321

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    Simulating and sampling from quantum circuits with 2d tensor networks,

    M. S. Rudolph and J. Tindall, “Simulating and sampling from quantum circuits with 2d tensor networks,”ArXiv preprint, 2025, presented orally in APS Global Physics Summit 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.11424

    2025

  43. [51]

    The fragment molecular orbital method: theoretical development, implementation in gamess, and applications,

    D. G. Fedorov, “The fragment molecular orbital method: theoretical development, implementation in gamess, and applications,”WIREs Computational Molecular Science, vol. 7, no. 6, p. e1322, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10. 1002/wcms.1322

    2017

  44. [52]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press, 2010. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976667

    2010 doi

  45. [53]

    Quantum, “RYGate,” Online API Reference to Qsikit library, 2026, accessed: 2026-07-29

    I. Quantum, “RYGate,” Online API Reference to Qsikit library, 2026, accessed: 2026-07-29. [Online]. Available: https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/docs/en/api/qiskit/qiskit.circuit.library. RYGate

    2026

  46. [54]

    Variational gibbs state preparation on noisy intermediate-scale quantum devices,

    M. Consiglio, J. Settino, A. Giordanoet al., “Variational gibbs state preparation on noisy intermediate-scale quantum devices,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 110, p. 012445, Jul 2024. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.110.012445

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    Refinements of pinsker’s inequality,

    A. Fedotov, P. Harremoes, and F. Topsoe, “Refinements of pinsker’s inequality,”IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 1491–1498, 2003. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2003.811927 23 A. Appendix: Estimators, statistical validation, and rep...

    2003

  48. [1984]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.1984.4767596 22

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.1984.4767596 22

    1984

  49. [2026]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2026.115981 21

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2026.115981 21

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.