ArticleBiophysical journal2014
Comment on the letter by A. Ben-Shaul: "entropy, energy, and bending of DNA in viral capsids".
Article in Biophysical journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of Microscopic Interactions on the Flexible Mechanical Properties of Viral DNA.Biophysical journal · 2018Article
- Temperature and pH dependence of DNA ejection from archaeal lemon-shaped virus His1.European biophysics journal : EBJ · 2016Article
- Reply to the comment by S. Harvey on "entropy, energy, and bending of DNA in viral capsids".Biophysical journal · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The conformational entropic penalty associated with packaging double-stranded DNA into viral capsids remains an issue of contention. So far, models based on a continuum approximation for DNA have either left the question unexamined, or they have assumed that the entropic penalty is negligible, following an early analysis by Riemer and Bloomfield. In contrast, molecular-dynamics (MD) simulations using bead-and-spring models consistently show a large penalty. A recent letter from Ben-Shaul attempts to reconcile the differences. While the letter makes some valid points, the issue of how to include conformational entropy in the continuum models remains unresolved. In this Comment, I show that the free energy decomposition from continuum models could be brought into line with the decomposition from the MD simulations with two adjustments. First, the entropy from Flory-Huggins theory should be replaced by the estimate of the entropic penalty given in Ben-Shaul's letter, which corresponds closely to that from the MD simulations. Second, the DNA-DNA repulsions are well described by the empirical relationship given by the Cal Tech group, but the strength of these should be reduced by about half, using parameters based on the Rau-Parsegian experiments, rather than treating them as "fitting parameters (tuned) to fit the data from (single molecule pulling) experiments."
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.