2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.11.023
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A multi-scale model for the analysis of the inhomogeneity of elastic properties of DNA biofilm on microcantilevers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
16
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 67 publications
2
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, Figure 3c shows that the competition between the repulsive part and attractive part of free energy lead to the non-monotonic variation of elastic modulus. In addition, the magnitude of the elastic modulus of the DNA film in 0.1 M NaCl solution was about 0.1~100 MPa, which is similar to Zhang’s theoretical prediction [22], and slightly smaller than Legay’s (50 mM NaCl solution) [32], due to different salt concentrations and packing conditions as well as the inherent deficiency of AFM-based nano-indentation detection. What is more, our simulation showed a consistent monotonic trend with that of Domínguez’s theoretical predictions and approaches the order of their AFM experiment results [17].…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 78%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Furthermore, Figure 3c shows that the competition between the repulsive part and attractive part of free energy lead to the non-monotonic variation of elastic modulus. In addition, the magnitude of the elastic modulus of the DNA film in 0.1 M NaCl solution was about 0.1~100 MPa, which is similar to Zhang’s theoretical prediction [22], and slightly smaller than Legay’s (50 mM NaCl solution) [32], due to different salt concentrations and packing conditions as well as the inherent deficiency of AFM-based nano-indentation detection. What is more, our simulation showed a consistent monotonic trend with that of Domínguez’s theoretical predictions and approaches the order of their AFM experiment results [17].…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 78%
“…In this section, the adsorbed DNA film is treated as an elastomer. According to continuum mechanics, if the free energy of the self- or directed-assembled DNA film is derived, its elastic properties in a uniaxial compressive/tensile state can be easily obtained as [20] Enormalp=3η2Wnormalb/ε2|ε=0, σnormalp=3ηWnormalb/ε|ε=0 where E p is the elastic modulus, σ p is the surface stress, ε is the axial strain, η is the DNA packing density, and η=2/false(3d02false) for the hexagonal packing pattern, in which d 0 is the initial interaxial distance [21,22]; W b is the free energy per unit length between two parallel DNA cylinders. However, there is no a unified formula for the free energy of DNA solutions.…”
Section: Multiscale Analytical Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…34 Previous theoretical works reveal that small amounts of disorder in the DNA monolayer can affect cantilever deflection. 28,[42][43][44] Moreover, Kosaka et al 19 , proved the heterogeneity of highly packed DNA monolayers on gold obtained by selfassembly. We speculate that the observed variations in the value of ΔS from sample to sample, for the same sequence and incubation conditions, could arise due to slight probe density differences or inhomogeneities.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the Parsegain's potential [10] was improved by Zhang et al with a soft cylinder model for dsDNA [13,14] to describe the flexibility of DNA film under different solution conditions, it still cannot be used to explain the adsorption-induced surface tension phenomenon [6][7][8][9] due to the lack of attraction interaction. Note that the assumption of cylinder model might be invalid for random coiled conformation of ssDNA with weak interactions [11] especially at the condition of low packing density.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%