Graphene Nanopores for Protein Sequencing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An inexpensive, reliable method for protein sequencing is essential to unraveling the biological mechanisms governing cellular behavior and disease. Current protein sequencing methods suffer from limitations associated with the size of proteins that can be sequenced, the time, and the cost of the sequencing procedures. Here, we report the results of all-atom molecular dynamics simulations that investigated the feasibility of using graphene nanopores for protein sequencing. We focus our study on the biologically significant phenylalanine-glycine repeat peptides (FG-nups)-parts of the nuclear pore transport machinery. Surprisingly, we found FG-nups to behave similarly to single stranded DNA: the peptides adhere to graphene and exhibit step-wise translocation when subject to a transmembrane bias or a hydrostatic pressure gradient. Reducing the peptide's charge density or increasing the peptide's hydrophobicity was found to decrease the translocation speed. Yet, unidirectional and stepwise translocation driven by a transmembrane bias was observed even when the ratio of charged to hydrophobic amino acids was as low as 1:8. The nanopore transport of the peptides was found to produce stepwise modulations of the nanopore ionic current correlated with the type of amino acids present in the nanopore, suggesting that protein sequencing by measuring ionic current blockades may be possible.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".