ArticleThe Journal of chemical physics2019
Extension distribution for DNA confined in a nanochannel near the Odijk regime.
Article in The Journal of chemical physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-molecule optical genome mapping in nanochannels: multidisciplinarity at the nanoscale.Essays in biochemistry · 2021Article
- Limitations of the equivalent neutral polymer assumption for theories describing nanochannel-confined DNA.Physical review. E · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
DNA confinement in a nanochannel typically is understood via mapping to the confinement of an equivalent neutral polymer by hard walls. This model has proven to be effective for confinement in relatively large channels where hairpin formation is frequent. An analysis of existing experimental data for Escherichia coli DNA extension in channels smaller than the persistence length, combined with an additional dataset for λ-DNA confined in a 34 nm wide channel, reveals a breakdown in this approach as the channel size approaches the Odijk regime of strong confinement. In particular, the predicted extension distribution obtained from the asymptotic solution to the weakly correlated telegraph model for a confined wormlike chain deviates significantly from the experimental distribution obtained for DNA confinement in the 34 nm channel, and the discrepancy cannot be resolved by treating the alignment fluctuations or the effective channel size as fitting parameters. We posit that the DNA-wall electrostatic interactions, which are sensible throughout a significant fraction of the channel cross section in the Odijk regime, are the source of the disagreement between theory and experiment. Dimensional analysis of the wormlike chain propagator in channel confinement reveals the importance of a dimensionless parameter, reflecting the magnitude of the DNA-wall electrostatic interactions relative to thermal energy, which has not been considered explicitly in the prevailing theories for DNA confinement in a nanochannel.
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.