Chromosome-like organization of an asymmetrical ring polymer confined in a cylindrical space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To what extent does a confined polymer show chromosome-like organization? Using molecular dynamics simulations, we study a model Escherichia coli (E. coli) chromosome: an asymmetrical ring polymer, formed by small monomers on one side and big monomers on the other confined in a concentric-shell or simple cylinder with closed ends. The ring polymer is organized in the way observed for the E. coli chromosome: if the big monomers are assumed to be localized in the inner cylinder, the two "subchains" forming the ring are spontaneously partitioned in a parallel orientation with the "body" (big-monomer) chain linearly organized with a desired precision and the crossing (small-monomer) chain residing preferentially in the peripheral region. Furthermore, we show that the introduction of a "fluctuating boundary" between the two subchains leads to a double-peak distribution of ter-proximate loci, as seen in experiments, which would otherwise remain single-peaked. In a simple cylinder, however, a chromosome-like organization of the ring polymer typically requires an external mechanism such as cell-wall attachment. Finally, our results clarify to what degree the spatial organization of the chromosomes can be accomplished solely by ring asymmetry and anisotropic confinement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".