The journey of a single polymer chain to a nanopore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For a polymer to successfully thread through a nanopore, it must first find the nanopore. This so-called capture process is typically considered as a two-stage operation consisting of the chain being delivered at the entrance of the nanopore and then insertion of one of the ends. Studying molecular dynamics-lattice Boltzmann simulations of the capture of a single polymer chain under pressure driven hydrodynamic flow, we observe that the insertion can be essentially automatic with no delay for the ends searching for the nanopore. The deformation of the chain within the converging flow area and also, the interplay between the chain elastic forces and the hydrodynamic drag play an important role in the capture of the chain by the nanopore. Along the journey to the nanopore, the chain may form folded shapes. The competition between the elastic and hydrodynamic forces results in unraveling of the folded conformations (hairpins) as the chain approaches the nanopore. Although the ends are not the only monomers that can thread into the nanopore, the unraveling process can result in much higher probability of threading by the ends.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".