Stretching of a polymer below the θ point

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 90, Issue 8, 2003, Pages

  Marenduzzo, D ^a   Maritan, A ^a,b   Rosa, A ^a   Seno, F ^c  

^a INFM   (Italy)

^b ABDUS SALAM INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THEORETICAL PHYSICS   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION THEORY; BOUNDARY CONDITIONS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EXTRAPOLATION; FREE ENERGY; GROUND STATE; HAMILTONIANS; MATRIX ALGEBRA; MONOMERS; MONTE CARLO METHODS; SIMULATED ANNEALING; TEMPERATURE;

FREE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS; MEAN FIELD APPROXIMATION; PERIODIC BOUNDARY CONDITIONS; PHENOMENOLOGICAL RENORMALIZATION; SELF-AVOIDING WALK; TRANSFER MATRIX METHOD;

POLYMERS;

EID: 0037471132     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. U. Bockelmann et al., Biophys. J. 82, 1537 (2002).
2. M. Reif, H. Clausen-Schaumann, and H. E. Gaub, Nat. Struct. Biol. 6, 346 (1999).
3. A. Kishino and T. Yanagida, Nature (London) 34, 74 (1988).
4. M. Rief et al., Science 276, 1109 (1997)
5. M. S. Z. Kellermayer et al., Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 481, 111 (2000).
6. C. G. Baumann et al., Biophys. J. 78, 1965 (2000).
7. B. J. Haupt, T. J. Senden, and E. M. Sevick, Langmuir 18, 2174 (2002).
8. A. Halperin and E. B. Zhulina, Europhys. Lett. 15, 417 (1991).
9. D. K. Klimov and D. Thirumalai, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96, 6166 (1999).
10. T. A. Vilgis, A. Johner, and J. F. Joanny, Eur. Phys. J. E 2, 289 (2000).
11. P. L. Geissler and E. I. Shakhnovich, Phys. Rev. E 65, 056110 (2002)
12. P. L. Geissler and E. I. Shakhnovich, Macromolecules 35, 4429 (2002).
13. P. Grassberger and H. P. Hsu, Phys. Rev. E 65, 031807 (2002).
14. D. Marenduzzo, A. Maritan, and F. Seno, J. Phys. A 35, L233 (2002).
15. M. Cieplak, T. X. Hoang, and M. O. Robbins, Proteins 49, 104 (2002)
16. M. Cieplak, T. X. Hoang, and M. O. Robbins, Proteins 49, 114 (2002).
17. S. M. Bhattacharjee, J. Phys. A 33, L423 (2000)
18. S. Cocco et al., Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98, 8608 (2001)
19. E. Carlon et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 198101 (2002).
20. D. Marenduzzo et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 028102 (2002).
21. C. Vanderzande, Lattice Models of Polymers (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1998).
22. Note that we use "mean field theory" in a broader sense, including approaches which consider the relative stability of the globule and the coil only (see also [10]). Mean field theories should be all equivalent as regards universality.
23. B. Derrida, J. Phys. A 14, L5 (1981).
24. This and other subleties of the TM approach (unnecessary here) will be addressed in detail elsewhere.
25. M. Henkel and G. Schutz, J. Phys. A 21, 2617 (1988).
26. S. Lise, A. Maritan, and A. Pelizzola, Phys. Rev. E 58, R5241 (1998).
27. A. Maritan, F. Seno, and A. L. Stella, Physica (Amsterdam) 156A, 679 (1989).
28. D. Dhar and J. Vannimenus, J. Phys. A 20, 199 (1987).
29. These facts can be proved exactly in a family of Sierpinski gaskets (see [12] for an example), where d is the fractal dimension. On conventional lattices, an approximate RG treatment as in [22] gives qualitatively the same behavior. Details will be given in a future work.
30. A. D. Sokal, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 47, 172 (1996).
31. A. Maritan et al., Nature (London) 406, 287 (2000).