ArticleBiophysical journal2014
Reply to the comment by S. Harvey on "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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Temperature and pH dependence of DNA ejection from archaeal lemon-shaped virus His1.European biophysics journal : EBJ · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The comment by Stephen Harvey in this issue of the Biophysical Journal concludes with two statements regarding my recent letter about DNA packaging into viral capsids. Harvey agrees with my interpretation of the origin of the large confinement entropy predicted by the molecular-dynamics simulations of his group, and its sensitive dependence on the molecular parameters of their wormlike chain model of double-stranded DNA. On the other hand, he doubts my assertion that the confinement entropy is already included in the interstrand repulsion free energy derived from osmotic stress measurements, which constitutes the major contribution to the packaging free energy used in recent continuum theories of this process. Harvey suggests instead that the confinement entropy should be added to this free energy as a separate term (using, for instance, the method described in my letter). I will argue that this addition is redundant, and, in a brief discussion of continuum theories, will also discuss his comments as relates to the work of other researchers.
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.