Hopping and crawling DNA-coated colloids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the motion of particles with multivalent ligand-receptors is important for biomedical applications and material design. Yet, even among a single design, the prototypical DNA-coated colloids, seemingly similar micrometric particles hop or roll, depending on the study. We shed light on this problem by observing DNA-coated colloids diffusing near surfaces coated with complementary strands for a wide array of coating designs. We find colloids rapidly switch between 2 modes: They hop-with long and fast steps-and crawl-with short and slow steps. Both modes occur at all temperatures around the melting point and over various designs. The particles become increasingly subdiffusive as temperature decreases, in line with subsequent velocity steps becoming increasingly anticorrelated, corresponding to switchbacks in the trajectories. Overall, crawling (or hopping) phases are more predominant at low (or high) temperatures; crawling is also more efficient at low temperatures than hopping to cover large distances. We rationalize this behavior within a simple model: At lower temperatures, the number of bound strands increases, and detachment of all bonds is unlikely, hence, hopping is prevented and crawling favored. We thus reveal the mechanism behind a common design rule relying on increased strand density for long-range self-assembly: Dense strands on surfaces are required to enable crawling, possibly facilitating particle rearrangements.
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".