Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Confinement of semiflexible polymers

Jemal Guven* and Pablo Vázquez-Montejo

  • Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Apartado Postal 70-543, 04510 México, Distrito Federal, Mexico

  • *jemal@nucleares.unam.mx
  • vazqmont@nucleares.unam.mx

Phys. Rev. E 85, 026603 – Published 16 February, 2012

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.85.026603

Abstract

A variational framework is developed to examine the equilibrium states of a semiflexible polymer that is constrained to lie on a fixed surface. As an application the confinement of a closed polymer loop of fixed length 2πR within a spherical cavity of smaller radius, R0, is considered. It is shown that an infinite number of distinct periodic completely attached equilibrium states exist, labeled by two integers: n=2,3,4, and p=1,2,3,, the number of periods of the polar and azimuthal angles, respectively. Small loops oscillate about a geodesic circle: n=2, p=1 is the stable ground state; states with higher n exhibit instabilities. If R2R0 new states appear as oscillations about a doubly covered geodesic circle; the state n=3,p=2 replaces the twofold as the ground state in a finite band of values of R. With increasing R, loop states make a transition from oscillatory and orbital behavior on crossing the poles, returning to oscillation upon collapse to a multiple cover of a geodesic circle (signaled, respectively, by an increase in p and an increase in n). The force transmitted to the surface does not increase monotonically with loop size, but does asymptotically. It behaves discontinuously where n changes. The contribution to energy from geodesic curvature is bounded. In large loops, the energy becomes dominated by a state independent contribution proportional to the loop size; the energy gap between the ground state and excited states disappears.

Article Text

References (30)

  1. A. J. Spakowitz and Z. G. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 166102 (2003).
  2. E. Katzav, M. Adda-Bedia, and A. Boudaoud, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 18900 (2006); L. Boué and E. Katzav, Europhys. Lett. 80, 54002 (2007).
  3. M. Kardar [http://www.mit.edu/~kardar/teaching/projects/dna_packing_website/index.html].
  4. K. Ostermeir, K. Alim, and E. Frey, Soft Matter 6, 3467 (2010).
  5. N. Stoop, J. Najafi, F. K. Wittel, M. Habibi, and H. J. Herrmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 214102 (2011).
  6. R. Levien, University of California at Berkeley Technical Report No. UCB/EECS-2008-103, 2008.
  7. J. Langer and D. A. Singer, J. Differential Geom. 20, 1 (1984).
  8. T. A. Ivey and D. A. Singer, Proc. London Math. Soc. 79, 429 (1999).
  9. D. A. Singer, in Proceedings of Curvature and Variational Modelling in Physics and Biophysics, edited by O. J. Garay, E. García-Río, and R. Vázquez-Lorenzo (American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD, 2008).
  10. R. Capovilla, C. Chryssomalakos, and J. Guven, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 35, 6571 (2002).
  11. G. S. Manning, Quart. Appl. Math. 45, 515 (1987).
  12. H. K. Nickerson and G. S. Manning, Geometriae Dedicata 27, 127 (1988).
  13. N. L. Marky and G. S. Manning, Biopolymers 31, 1543 (1991).
  14. R. Zandi and J. Rudnick, Phys. Rev. E 64, 051918 (2001).
  15. H. Schiessel, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 15, R699 (2003).
  16. G. H. M. Van der Heijden, M. A. Peletier, and R. Planqué, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 182, 471 (2006).
  17. L. Boué, M. Adda-Bedia, and A. Boudaoud, in Proceedings of Rencontres du Non-linéaire, edited by R. Ribotta (Paris Onze Editions, Orsay, 2006).
  18. L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Theory of Elasticity (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1999).
  19. G. Brunnett and P. E. Crouch, Adv. Comput. Math. 2, 23 (1994).
  20. J. Arroyo, O. J. Garay, and J. Mencía, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39, 2307 (2006).
  21. J. Guven and M. M. Müller, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 41, 055203 (2008).
  22. M. M. Muller, M. B. Amar, and J. Guven, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 156104 (2008).
  23. J. Guven, M. M. Müller, and P. Vázquez-Montejo, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 45, 015203 (2012).
  24. M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions: With Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables (Dover, New York, 1965).
  25. N. Stoop, F. K. Wittel, M. B. Amar, M. M. Müller, and H. J. Herrmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 068101 (2010).
  26. U. Seifert, Adv. Phys. 46, 13 (1997).
  27. U. Seifert and R. Lipowsky, in Handbook of Biological Physics, edited by R. Lipowsky and E. Sackmann (Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1995), Vol. 1.
  28. R. Capovilla and J. Guven Phys. Rev. E 66, 041604 (2002).
  29. M. Deserno, M. M. Müller, and J. Guven, Phys. Rev. E 76, 011605 (2007).
  30. This point was convincingly illustrated recently in a related context by L. Giomi and M. Mahadevan, e-print arXiv:1108.0597v2.

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation