Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38495564›Full record

ArticleArXiv2024

Electric field of DNA in solution: who is in charge?

Jonathan G Hedley, Kush Coshic, Aleksei Aksimentiev, Alexei A Kornyshev

Open access · goldAbstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in ArXiv, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jonathan G Hedley
Kush Coshic
Aleksei Aksimentiev
Alexei A Kornyshev
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · USImperial College London · GBThomas Young Centre · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In solution, DNA is a highly charged macromolecule which bears a unit of negative charge on each phosphate of its sugar-phosphate backbone. Although partially compensated by counterions adsorbed at or condensed near it, DNA still produces a substantial electric field in its vicinity, which is screened by buffer electrolyte at longer distances from the DNA. Such field has been explored so far predominantly within the scope of a primitive model of the electrolytic solution, not considering more complicated structural effects of the water solvent. In this paper we investigate the distribution of electric field around DNA using linear response nonlocal electrostatic theory, applied here for helix-specific charge distributions, and compare the predictions of such theory with specially performed fully atomistic large scale molecular dynamics simulations. The main finding of this study is that oscillations in the electrostatic potential distribution are present around DNA, caused by the overscreening effect of structured water. Surprisingly, electrolyte ions at physiological concentrations do not strongly disrupt these oscillations, and rather distribute according to these oscillating patterns, indicating that water structural effects dominate the short-range electrostatics. We also show that (i) structured water adsorbed in the grooves of DNA lead to a positive electrostatic potential core, (ii) the Debye length some 10 {\AA} away from the DNA is reduced, effectively renormalised by the helical pitch of the DNA, and (iii) Lorentzian contributions to the nonlocal dielectric function of water, effectively reducing the dielectric constant close to the DNA, enhances the overall electric field. The impressive agreement between the atomistic simulations and the developed theory substantiates the use of nonlocal electrostatics when considering solvent effects in molecular processes in biology.

Identifiers

PMID38495564
PMCPMC10942492
OpenAlexW4392677939

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.