1:
2: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
4:
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: \usepackage{dcolumn}
7: \usepackage{bm}
8:
9: \begin{document}
10:
11: \preprint{APS/123-QED}
12:
13: \title{Concentration-Temperature Superposition of Helix Folding
14: Rates in Gelatin}
15:
16: \author{J. L. Gornall, E. M. Terentjev}
17: %\email{emt1000@cam.ac.uk}
18: \affiliation{Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, J J
19: Thomson Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 0HE, U.K.}
20:
21: \date{\today}
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24: We study the kinetics of helix-coil transition in water solutions
25: of gelatin (collagen protein) by optical rotation techniques
26: combined with thermal characterization. By examining the rates of
27: secondary helix folding, and covering a very wide range of
28: solution concentrations, we are able to identify a universal
29: exponential dependence of folding rate on concentration and quench
30: temperature. We demonstrate a new concentration-temperature
31: superposition of data at all temperatures and concentrations, and
32: build the corresponding master curve. The results support the
33: concept of a diffuse helix-coil transition. We find no
34: concentration dependance of the normalized rate constant,
35: suggesting first order (single) kinetics of secondary helix
36: folding dominate in the early stages of renaturation.
37: \end{abstract}
38:
39: %\pacs{Valid PACS appear here}
40: %\keywords{Suggested keywords}
41:
42: \maketitle
43:
44: Kinetics of protein folding is one of the cornerstone problems in
45: understanding the full mystery of biologically active macromolecules
46: \cite{fersht03,kubel04}. A number of experimental techniques focus
47: on a great variety of natural and synthetic polypeptides undergoing
48: their globular collapse, or denaturation into the coil. Although one
49: might want to think of such a transition in terms of individual
50: macromolecules, there is much evidence that cooperative effects
51: between different chains play a significant role, an effect often
52: referred to as oligomerization \cite{elco01}. This extreme
53: variability has, to date, defied any attempt on universal
54: description, beyond the classical Zimm-Bragg abstraction
55: \cite{zimm59}.
56:
57: In this Letter we examine perhaps the most well-studied protein,
58: collagen, and discover that the complexity of its folding kinetics,
59: strongly dependent on temperature and concentration in the solvent,
60: can be dramatically simplified. All of this kinetics can be scaled
61: onto a single master curve by a new procedure we call the
62: ``concentration-temperature superposition''. There is a remarkable
63: analogy: the classical time-temperature superposition
64: \cite{ferry70,wlf55} has allowed master curves to describe the glass
65: transition in a variety of thermal viscoelastic systems and served a
66: great purpose in rheology for the last 50 years. A much more recent
67: discovery of time-concentration superposition \cite{trap00,cicu03}
68: has allowed the universal description of dynamic glass, or jamming
69: transition, in lyotropic systems such as colloid suspensions. In
70: both cases the cooperativity of interparticle interaction is the
71: key, and we shall argue that it is relevant for the folding kinetics
72: as well.
73:
74: We must emphasize that we study the principal helix-coil transition
75: in collagen chains, i.e. the folding of secondary helices. This is
76: achieved by our experimental methods focusing on optical rotation of
77: linearly polarized light at a wavelength away from any absorbtion
78: band. It has been recently demonstrated that the dominant
79: contribution to the measured rotation rate arises from the secondary
80: helices \cite{gornall06}. This is different from the more common
81: studies of gelation kinetics in gelatin, which is controlled by the
82: tertiary triple helices and is usually studied by rheological
83: methods. The field of sol-gel transition and mechanical response of
84: networks is broad and well-established \cite{winter86,goldbart96}.
85: Recent important observations~\cite{normand00} of universal master
86: curves, describing specifically the storage modulus in gelatin, also
87: make connections with glassy dynamics. We shall see from the results
88: below that our present work is not related to these ideas: we
89: examine much shorter times at which the secondary structure is
90: formed, while the kinetics of subsequent rheological is a much
91: slower process.
92:
93: Collagen is the main protein component of white fibrous connective
94: tissues such as skin, tendons and bones. The fundamental unit of
95: the native collagen structure is a rod consisting of three
96: individual molecular strands, each twisted into a secondary
97: left-handed helix, which analogous and very similar to the
98: classical $\alpha$-helix in other polypeptides. In collagen, three
99: segments of secondary helix wrap together to form a tertiary
100: right-handed superhelix stabilized by further interchain hydrogen
101: bonding \cite{rama67}. Collagen is extracted from tissues by
102: hydrolytic degradation, which denatures it producing the resulting
103: material commonly known as gelatin.
104:
105: Gelatin is dissolved in water by heating the solution to
106: 40$^{\circ}$C. Above this temperature collagen chains have random
107: coil configuration. On cooling transparent gels form containing
108: extended physical crosslinks. X-ray diffraction and transmission
109: electron microscopy measurements suggest that the crosslinks are
110: formed by partial reversion to ordered triple-helical segments,
111: separated along the chain contour by peptide residues still in the
112: random coil configuration \cite{pezr90,djab93}. At very low
113: concentrations the renaturation, or folding process is completely
114: intramolecular and proceeds by a back folding of the single chains
115: \cite{harr70}. With increasing concentration the renaturation
116: becomes increasingly intermolecular. Gelation occurs at
117: concentrations above $5$\,mg/ml due to the formation of an
118: infinite elastic network in the gelatin solution, see
119: \cite{normand00,guo03} and references therein.
120:
121: \begin{figure} [b]
122: \centering \resizebox{0.47\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fig1}}
123: \caption{(a) DSC traces demonstrating the helix-coil transition in
124: gelatin/water solutions of different concentrations, labelled on
125: plot. \ (b) A thermal phase diagram of this transition, $T_m(c)$,
126: obtained from the DSC data ($\odot$), with results for different
127: preparation methods from the literature ($\boxdot$ - \cite{god78},
128: $\blacksquare$ - \cite{bohi93}). The value $T_c$ is obtained from
129: the concentration-temperature superposition analysis below.}
130: \label{fig:phase}
131: \end{figure}
132:
133: Gelatin owes many of its uses to this coil-helix transition. The
134: kinetics of the transition has been extensively studied for many
135: years using a variety of techniques such as differential scanning
136: calorimetry (DSC), scattering and rheometry, as well as optical
137: rotation. Figure~\ref{fig:phase}(a) shows a sequence of DSC traces
138: of helix-coil transition that we obtained in gelatin solutions of
139: different concentration, while Fig.~\ref{fig:phase}(b) shows the
140: corresponding transition line, $T_m(c)$. A very flat dependence of
141: the transition temperature on concentration in the thermal phase
142: diagram, extrapolating to $c \rightarrow 0$, indicates that the
143: transition is largely intrachain. Note that the gelation phase
144: diagram, obtained by rheological methods, would show a drop of the
145: gel point $T_g(c)$ below $5$\,mg/ml. Also note that, since the
146: melting temperature depends strongly on the gelation temperature and
147: time, a broad range of $T_m(c)$ values are found in the literature.
148:
149: Gelatin, as any protein, is an optically active material in both the
150: random coil and helical states. However, due to coherent long-range
151: chiral ordering, helical domains rotate the plane of light
152: polarization much more strongly than the individual chiral
153: aminoacids in the coil state. Thus, the coherent optical activity
154: gives a direct indication of the fraction of the monomers in helical
155: states.
156:
157: In many biopolymers, including polysaccharides and DNA, the
158: coil-helix transition is very fast and resembles a true first order
159: phase transition \cite{nort83}. In gelatin, however, the helix
160: nucleation step lasts several minutes and subsequent growth of the
161: helices proceeds even slower, at a logarithmic rate \cite{djab88}.
162: This allows one to study its detailed kinetics. Most investigations
163: have focused on isothermal renaturation rather than temperature
164: scanning studies, because of the difficulty in accessing the
165: equilibrium state. This slowness of the process will allow us to
166: scan and superpose the renaturation kinetics over a range of
167: temperatures and concentrations.
168:
169: In one of the earlier studies, Flory and Weaver studied helix growth
170: rates in very dilute gelatin solutions ($c<4$\,mg/ml) and found
171: first order kinetics \cite{flor60}, i.e.~that the folding rate is
172: concentration-independent. They postulated the coil-helix transition
173: proceeds via an intermediate state formed by intramolecular
174: rearrangement of a single chain. Assuming this state consists of a
175: secondary helix segment, consideration of the minimum stable segment
176: length leads to the Flory-Weaver expression for the rate constant
177: for the renaturation after quenching the dilute solution:
178: \begin{equation}
179: k_1 = B\exp\left({\frac{-A}{kT \Delta{T}}}\right) ,
180: \label{eq:flory}
181: \end{equation}
182: where $A$ and $B$ are constants, $T$ is the quench temperature,
183: and $\Delta{T}= T_{\rm m} - T$ is the degree of supercooling below
184: the equilibrium melting temperature $T_{\rm m}$.
185:
186: The first order kinetic analysis agrees with other experimental
187: observations of dilute gelatin solutions \cite{harr70}. In
188: semidilute solutions concentration-dependant kinetics has been
189: observed \cite{guo03,term90}. Consequently, new mechanisms have been
190: proposed, involving either different segments of the same chain or
191: up to three different peptide chains having to interact to form
192: stable helices. The topological consequences of these arrangements
193: on helix formation and gelation are very significant.
194:
195: Goddard {\it et al.}~\cite{god78}, suggesting an analogy between
196: renaturation and crystallization, modelled the kinetics in terms of
197: Avrami exponents \cite{avr41}: $ \chi = 1-\exp \left[-k_1
198: t^n\right]$, where $\chi$ is the helix fraction. They obtained the
199: exponent $n$ close to unity, suggesting one-dimensional growth from
200: predetermined nuclei and supporting the first order kinetics ideas.
201: Early optical rotation studies confirmed that simple exponential
202: kinetic occurs in dilute solutions, but only in the initial stages
203: of renaturation \cite{djab83,dura85}. Most recently, Guo {\it et
204: al.~}\cite{guo03} studied initial renaturation rates of gelatin
205: solutions at semidilute concentrations up to $0.12$\,g/ml and
206: observed what appeared as a combination of first order and second
207: order kinetics, i.e. the rate of growth of the normalized helix
208: fraction had a linear concentration dependence. This seems unusual,
209: in view of the triple nature of tertiary helix linkages in collagen.
210: However, the observations of second-order gelation kinetics, in
211: particular the elastic modulus proportional to $c^2$, have been made
212: for over a century \cite{veis64}. A two-step mechanism with the rate
213: limiting step formation of a nucleus of two helices wrapped
214: together, followed by rapid subsequent wrapping of another coil
215: segment to form the triple helix has been proposed a long time ago
216: to account for these findings \cite{coopes70,normand00}. However, we
217: shall argue that there is a big difference between optical rotation
218: and rheological studies. The latter return the viscoelastic response
219: of the gel and thus rely on the triple-helix linkages of the
220: network. Our opinion \cite{gornall06} is that the properly measured
221: optical rotation signal is determined by secondary helices and not
222: the tertiary structure. We attribute the second-order kinetics of
223: Guo {\it et al.} \cite{guo03} to the range of examined
224: concentrations - only up to $\sim 0.1$\,g/ml (which is also the
225: range in the rheological work of Normand {\it et al.}
226: \cite{normand00}). Overall, examining the literature of the last 30
227: years, one finds no universality, nor agreement between different
228: concepts.
229:
230: \begin{figure} %[h]
231: \centering \resizebox{0.46\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fig2}}
232: \caption{Typical traces of normalized optical rotation, directly
233: proportional to the secondary helix density, as function of time
234: after quenching the denatured collagen solution to $T_{\rm
235: Q}=11^{\rm o}$C. Different data sets correspond to concentrations
236: labelled on graph. Solid/dashed lines are fits with
237: $A(1-\exp[-t/\tau])$. } \label{fig:quench}
238: \end{figure}
239:
240: In an attempt to link together all of the past findings, we
241: studied the helix-coil transition in gelatin over a much wider
242: concentration range, up to $0.4$\,g/ml. The universal master
243: curves we construct from the new superposition procedure give
244: explicit predictions for $c \approx 0.65$\,g/ml, and can be
245: further extended to the full range of temperatures and
246: concentrations. The high-sensitivity differential optical rotation
247: detector we used to measure the secondary helix content has been
248: described in, e.g., \cite{courty06}. The raw measurement of the
249: total angle of polarization plane rotation, $\Psi$, is divided by
250: the (constant) sample thickness to produce the rotation rate. It
251: is then normalized by the solution concentration to obtain a
252: specific rotation $[\alpha]=(1/c)[d\Psi/dz]$, from which we
253: subtract a bare value $[\alpha]_0$ corresponding to the average
254: aminoacid optical activity, separately measured in the coil state
255: at high temperatures. The resulting difference is proportional to
256: the concentration of correlated helices in the medium. The typical
257: reading, for a range of concentrations, is shown in
258: Fig.~\ref{fig:quench} for a solution quenched from $ 50^{\rm o}$C
259: to the value $T =11^{\rm o}$C in this case. As a result of
260: $[\alpha]$ normalization, the $y$-axis in Fig.~\ref{fig:quench} is
261: directly proportional to the helix fraction in the sample.
262:
263: There are important and delicate issues of the slow drift of
264: collagen towards its natural state~\cite{djab88}, reflected in the
265: small deviation of the long-time data from the simple exponential
266: fit of each data set (shown by the lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:quench}).
267: For instance, the rheological study of Normand {\it et
268: al.}~\cite{normand00} is heavily based on this regime, where the
269: tertiary structure (and the gel elasticity) are being consolidated
270: and the elastic modulus increases dramatically. We, however, are
271: concerned with the initial rates of secondary helix growth,
272: $R_0(c,T)$, essentially the slopes $R_0 \equiv d[\alpha ]/dt =
273: A/\tau $ at $t\rightarrow 0$, from the fitted functions
274: $A[1-\exp(-t/\tau)]$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:quench}. For each quench
275: temperature, these slopes depend on the solution concentration. The
276: summary of this dependence is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:rates}. The
277: highly non-linear concentration dependence of growth rates is
278: apparent from the exponential fits of all data sets. We note that
279: the highest solution concentration quantitatively studied so far was
280: $c \sim 0.12$~g/ml, by Guo {\it et al.}\cite{guo03}.
281:
282: \begin{figure} %[h]
283: \centering \resizebox{0.35\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fig3}}
284: \caption{Initial rates of helical nuclei growth, $R_0$ at $t
285: \rightarrow 0$, as functions of solution concentration, for a
286: range of quench temperatures labeled on plot. Solid/dashed lines
287: are fits with exponential $B \,\exp[Y\, c]$. The arrow indicates
288: the concentration range of earlier studies~\cite{guo03}.}
289: \label{fig:rates}
290: \end{figure}
291:
292: Guided by the experience in time-temperature and
293: time-concentration superposition, we notice that the sets of data
294: for the growth rates in Fig.~\ref{fig:rates} can be shifted along
295: the concentration axis by an amount that is a function of quench
296: temperature. Selecting a reference temperature (at this stage, we
297: arbitrarily choose $T_{\rm ref}=21^{\rm o}$C) one scales the
298: concentration $c$ for each data set such that $\widetilde{c}=\beta
299: \cdot c$, with the coefficient (the shift factor) a function of
300: the quench temperature for each data set, $\beta = \beta(T)$. The
301: fact that these sets do superpose means that there is a universal
302: underlying expression for the growth rate $R_0[\beta(T) c]$. The
303: resulting master curve, Fig.~\ref{fig:super}, is an indication of
304: such a universal physical process that controls the helical
305: nucleation and growth in all regions of the $(T,c)$-phase diagram.
306:
307: \begin{figure} %[h]
308: \centering \resizebox{0.35\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fig4}}
309: \caption{The master curve of growth rate vs. concentration,
310: $R_0(\widetilde{c})$, superposing the results for different quench
311: temperatures (labelled on plot). The arrows point at different
312: data sets; the solid line is a universal fit with $B \,\exp[Y\,
313: \widetilde{c}])$.} \label{fig:super}
314: \end{figure}
315:
316: \begin{figure}
317: \centering \resizebox{0.35\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fig5}}
318: \caption{Dependence of the shift factor $\beta$ on quench
319: temperature $T_{\rm Q}$. The reference temperature chosen at
320: $21^{\rm o}$C corresponds to the original, non-shifted data -- or
321: $\beta=1$. The linear fit (dashed line) crosses the $\beta=0$ line
322: at $\sim 30^{\rm o}$C.} \label{fig:shift}
323: \end{figure}
324:
325: It is important to establish a law of the shift factors $\beta$
326: dependence on temperature. Figure~\ref{fig:shift} gives the plot
327: of a set $\beta(T)$ required to produce the superposed master
328: curve for the initial growth rate. It follows quite an obvious
329: linear function, $\beta = 0.1(T_{\rm c}-T)$, with the ``critical
330: temperature'' $T_{\rm c}\approx 30^{\rm o}$C (more precisely,
331: $302.5^{\rm o}$K) defined as the point at which $\beta = 0$. This
332: temperature is labelled in the gelatin phase diagram and the
333: sequence of DSC scans, Fig.~\ref{fig:phase}(a). Clearly, its
334: relation to the transition line is not accidental. In fact we
335: should conclude that (within errors of our experiment and
336: analysis) this critical temperature is indeed the line of the
337: helix-coil transition, $T_{\rm c}=T_{\rm m}(c)$. With this
338: assumption, the helical growth rate, as obtained from the master
339: curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:shift}, follows the equation
340: \begin{equation}
341: \left. \frac{d[\alpha ]}{dt} \right|_{t\rightarrow 0} = B \, \exp
342: \left[b(T_{\rm m}-T ) \, c \right] \label{eq:rate}
343: \end{equation}
344: with fixed parameters $B \approx 0.06 \, \hbox{deg/dm
345: (g/ml)}^{-1}\hbox{s}^{-1}$ and $b \approx 0.6 \,
346: \hbox{(ml/g)}/^{\rm o}\hbox{K}$. Note that we find no critical or
347: singular behavior near the transition. The growth rate becomes
348: exponentially small at $T > T_{\rm m}$. In retrospect, it is
349: perhaps not surprising that we did not obtain a critical vanishing
350: of the growth rate, as would be the case with classical phase
351: transitions, or was suggested by the old Eq.(\ref{eq:flory}). Our
352: present finding supports the idea of a diffuse nature of
353: helix-coil transformation in a single chain, with chain
354: fluctuations capable of creating a non-vanishing helical fraction
355: above $T_{\rm m}(c)$ and disrupt thermodynamically equilibrium
356: helices formed below this temperature. In other words, there is no
357: sharp phase boundary $T_{\rm m}(c)$ for the helix-coil transition.
358: In equilibrium models of this transition one identifies $T_{\rm
359: m}$ as a point of steepest gradient in helical fraction $\chi(T)$,
360: while in our study of kinetics we obtain roughly the same value at
361: a point when $R_0(c,T)$ changes from the decaying to the growing
362: exponential function $ \exp[Yc]$.
363:
364: Having established the universal master curve for the folding rates
365: $R_0(c,T)$, we must now make contact with the other kinetic studies,
366: that traditionally focus on the normalized helical fraction, in our
367: notation defined as
368: \begin{equation}
369: \chi(t) = \frac{[\alpha ] - [\alpha]_0}{A(c,T)} \
370: =1-\exp(-t/\tau) \ ,
371: \end{equation}
372: according to Fig.~\ref{fig:quench} and earlier work \cite{god78}.
373: The origin of the exponential concentration dependence,
374: Eq.~(\ref{eq:rate}), is in the constant $A(c)$, while the normalized
375: rate $k = 1/\tau \equiv R_0/A$. The concentration dependence of this
376: rate is a signature of process topology, e.g, a constant value means
377: first-order (single-molecule) folding process. Guo {\it et
378: al.~}\cite{guo03} claimed a second-order process, i.e.~a linear
379: dependence $k = k_1 + k_2 c + ...$, but we clearly arrive at
380: different conclusions. Figure~\ref{fig:k1} shows our results for the
381: normalized rates $k$ over a concentration range much wider than in
382: any previous work. There are some delicate issues of fitting the
383: data that includes the slow long-time tail, which certainly accounts
384: for the large noise in the $k(c)$ data. However, the qualitative
385: picture clearly suggests that there is no relevant concentration
386: dependence and, therefore, the single-chain folding process
387: (first-order) $k_1$ is in fact dominant at early stages of
388: renaturation. This may appear a surprising result as, with
389: increasing concentration, intramolecular rearrangements of single
390: chains become limited. Also, the triple-helical nature of collagen
391: helices is well established indeed \cite{veis64}. However, let us
392: remember that our experimental method inherently looks at the
393: secondary helices (the signal from triple helical structures is very
394: low due to the large wavelength mismatch). The observed first-order
395: (i.e. single-chain) nature of the principal folding process appears
396: to be an indication that the transition from coil to secondary helix
397: is a single chain process, while the association of these helices to
398: form the triple network linkages occurs subsequently and contributes
399: less to the helical onset than was previously thought.
400:
401: \begin{figure}[t]
402: \centering \resizebox{0.35\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fig6}}
403: \caption{Normalized folding rates $k$ as functions of
404: concentration at different quench temperatures (labelled on
405: plot).} \label{fig:k1}
406: \end{figure}
407:
408: In conclusion, by applying a new concentration-temperature
409: superposition we found a universal master curve describing the
410: initial folding rates $R_0$ of gelatin solutions over a broad range
411: of concentrations and temperatures, spanning the nominal helix-coil
412: transition point $T_m$. The exponential $(c,T)$-dependence of $R_0$
413: arises from the increasing overall amount of helices in different
414: systems. In contrast, the normalized helical fraction $\chi(t)$
415: grows with a $c$-independent rate, suggesting the first-order
416: kinetics. One needs to study other oligomerizing proteins to test
417: the further universality of the discovered master curves.
418:
419:
420: %\begin{acknowledgments}
421: We acknowledge useful discussions with R. Colby, P. Barker, P.
422: Cicuta and A. Craig. This research was supported by EPSRC.
423: %\end{acknowledgments}
424:
425: %\bibliography{superposition}
426: \begin{thebibliography}{26}
427: \expandafter\ifx\csname
428: natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
429: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax
430: \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi
431: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax
432: \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi
433: \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax
434: \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi
435: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax
436: \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi
437: \expandafter\ifx\csname
438: urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi
439: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}
440: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}
441:
442: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ferguson and Ferscht}(2003)}]{fersht03}
443: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Ferguson}} \bibnamefont{and}
444: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~R.} \bibnamefont{Ferscht}},
445: \bibinfo{journal}{Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{13}},
446: \bibinfo{pages}{75} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).
447:
448: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kubelka et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Kubelka, Hofrichter,
449: and Eaton}}]{kubel04}
450: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Kubelka}},
451: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Hofrichter}},
452: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~A.} \bibnamefont{Eaton}},
453: \bibinfo{journal}{Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{14}},
454: \bibinfo{pages}{76} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).
455:
456: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Elcock and McCammon}(2001)}]{elco01}
457: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~H.} \bibnamefont{Elcock}} \bibnamefont{and}
458: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~A.} \bibnamefont{McCammon}},
459: \bibinfo{journal}{Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{98}},
460: \bibinfo{pages}{2990} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).
461:
462: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Zimm and Bragg}(1959)}]{zimm59}
463: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.~H.} \bibnamefont{Zimm}} \bibnamefont{and}
464: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~K.} \bibnamefont{Bragg}},
465: \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{11}},
466: \bibinfo{pages}{526} (\bibinfo{year}{1959}).
467:
468: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ferry}(1970)}]{ferry70}
469: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~D.} \bibnamefont{Ferry}},
470: \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Viscoelastic Properties of Polymers (2nd ed.)}}
471: (\bibinfo{publisher}{Wiley, NY}, \bibinfo{year}{1970}).
472:
473: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Williams et~al.}(1955)\citenamefont{Williams, Landel,
474: and Ferry}}]{wlf55}
475: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~L.} \bibnamefont{Williams}},
476: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~F.} \bibnamefont{Landel}},
477: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~D.} \bibnamefont{Ferry}},
478: \bibinfo{journal}{J. Amer. Chem. Soc.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{77}},
479: \bibinfo{pages}{3701} (\bibinfo{year}{1955}).
480:
481: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Trappe and Weitz}(2000)}]{trap00}
482: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Trappe}} \bibnamefont{and}
483: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~A.} \bibnamefont{Weitz}},
484: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{85}},
485: \bibinfo{pages}{449} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).
486:
487: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Cicuta et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Cicuta, Stancik, and
488: Fuller}}]{cicu03}
489: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Cicuta}},
490: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~J.} \bibnamefont{Stancik}},
491: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~G.}
492: \bibnamefont{Fuller}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
493: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{90}}, \bibinfo{pages}{236101}
494: (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).
495:
496: \bibitem{gornall06}
497: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Courty}},
498: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~L.} \bibnamefont{Gornall}},
499: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~M.}
500: \bibnamefont{Terentjev}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Biophys. J.}
501: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{90}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1019}
502: (\bibinfo{year}{2006}).
503:
504: \bibitem{winter86}
505: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~H.} \bibnamefont{Winter}},
506: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}
507: \bibnamefont{Chambon}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J. Rheol.}
508: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{30}}, \bibinfo{pages}{367}
509: (\bibinfo{year}{1986}).
510:
511: \bibitem{goldbart96}
512: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~M.}~\bibnamefont{Goldbart}},
513: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~E.} \bibnamefont{Castillo}},
514: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}
515: \bibnamefont{Zippelius}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Adv. Phys.}
516: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{45}}, \bibinfo{pages}{393}
517: (\bibinfo{year}{1996}).
518:
519: \bibitem{normand00}
520: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Normand}},
521: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.} \bibnamefont{Muller}},
522: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.-C.} \bibnamefont{Ravey}},
523: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}
524: \bibnamefont{Parker}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Macromolecules}
525: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{33}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1063}
526: (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).
527:
528: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ramachandran}(1967)}]{rama67}
529: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~N.} \bibnamefont{Ramachandran}},
530: \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Treatise on Collagen}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{N. Y. Acad.
531: Press}, \bibinfo{year}{1967}).
532:
533: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Pezron et~al.}(1990)\citenamefont{Pezron, Djabourov,
534: Bosio, and Leblond}}]{pezr90}
535: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Pezron}},
536: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Djabourov}},
537: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Bosio}}, \bibnamefont{and}
538: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Leblond}},
539: \bibinfo{journal}{J. Polym. Sci., Part B: Polym. Phys.}
540: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{28}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1823} (\bibinfo{year}{1990}).
541:
542: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Djabourov et~al.}(1993)\citenamefont{Djabourov, Bonnet,
543: Kaplan, Favard, Favard, Lechaire, and Maillard}}]{djab93}
544: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Djabourov}},
545: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Bonnet}},
546: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Kaplan}},
547: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Favard}},
548: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Favard}},
549: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Lechaire}}, \bibnamefont{and}
550: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Maillard}},
551: \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. II (Paris)} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{3}},
552: \bibinfo{pages}{611} (\bibinfo{year}{1993}).
553:
554: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Harrington and Rao}(1970)}]{harr70}
555: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~F.} \bibnamefont{Harrington}}
556: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.~V.} \bibnamefont{Rao}},
557: \bibinfo{journal}{Biochemistry} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{9}},
558: \bibinfo{pages}{3714} (\bibinfo{year}{1970}).
559:
560: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Guo et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Guo, Colby, Lusignan,
561: and Howe}}]{guo03}
562: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Guo}},
563: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~H.} \bibnamefont{Colby}},
564: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~P.} \bibnamefont{Lusignan}},
565: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~M.} \bibnamefont{Howe}},
566: \bibinfo{journal}{Macromolecules} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{36}},
567: \bibinfo{pages}{10009} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).
568:
569: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Goddard et~al.}(1978)\citenamefont{Goddard, Biebuyck,
570: Daumerie, Naveau, and Mercier}}]{god78}
571: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Goddard}},
572: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~J.} \bibnamefont{Biebuyck}},
573: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Daumerie}},
574: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Naveau}}, \bibnamefont{and}
575: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~P.} \bibnamefont{Mercier}},
576: \bibinfo{journal}{J. Polym. Sci., Polym. Phys. Edn.}
577: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{16}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1817} (\bibinfo{year}{1978}).
578:
579: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bohidar et~al.}(1993)\citenamefont{Bohidar and Jena}}]{bohi93}
580: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~B.}~\bibnamefont{Bohidar}},
581: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~S.} \bibnamefont{Jena}},
582: \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Phys.}
583: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{98}}, \bibinfo{pages}{8970} (\bibinfo{year}{1993}).
584:
585: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Norton et~al.}(1983)\citenamefont{Norton, Goodall,
586: Morris, and Rees}}]{nort83}
587: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.~T.} \bibnamefont{Norton}},
588: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~M.} \bibnamefont{Goodall}},
589: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~R.} \bibnamefont{Morris}},
590: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~A.} \bibnamefont{Rees}},
591: \bibinfo{journal}{J. Chem. Soc. Fraraday Trans. (I)}
592: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{79}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2489} (\bibinfo{year}{1983}).
593:
594: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Djabourov et~al.}(1988)\citenamefont{Djabourov,
595: Leblond, and Papon}}]{djab88}
596: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Djabourov}},
597: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Leblond}}, \bibnamefont{and}
598: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Papon}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J.
599: Phys. France} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{49}}, \bibinfo{pages}{319}
600: (\bibinfo{year}{1988}).
601:
602: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Flory and Weaver}(1960)}]{flor60}
603: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~J.} \bibnamefont{Flory}} \bibnamefont{and}
604: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~S.} \bibnamefont{Weaver}},
605: \bibinfo{journal}{J. Am. Chem. Soc.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{82}},
606: \bibinfo{pages}{4518} (\bibinfo{year}{1960}).
607:
608: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{TerMeer et~al.}()\citenamefont{TerMeer, Lips, and
609: Busnel}}]{term90}
610: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~U.} \bibnamefont{TerMeer}},
611: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Lips}}, \bibnamefont{and}
612: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.-P.} \bibnamefont{Busnel}}, in
613: \emph{\bibinfo{booktitle}{Physical networks: polymers and gels}}, edited by
614: \bibinfo{editor}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Burchard}} \bibnamefont{and}
615: \bibinfo{editor}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Ross-Murphy}} (Elselvier, 1990).
616:
617: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Avrami}(1941)}]{avr41}
618: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Avrami}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J.
619: Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{9}}, \bibinfo{pages}{177}
620: (\bibinfo{year}{1941}).
621:
622: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Djabourov and Papon}(1983)}]{djab83}
623: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Djabourov}} \bibnamefont{and}
624: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Papon}},
625: \bibinfo{journal}{Polymer} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{24}},
626: \bibinfo{pages}{537} (\bibinfo{year}{1983}).
627:
628: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Durand et~al.}(1985)\citenamefont{Durand, Emry, and
629: Chatelier}}]{dura85}
630: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Durand}},
631: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~R.} \bibnamefont{Emry}}, \bibnamefont{and}
632: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~Y.} \bibnamefont{Chatelier}},
633: \bibinfo{journal}{Int. J. Biol. Macromol.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{7}},
634: \bibinfo{pages}{315} (\bibinfo{year}{1985}).
635:
636: \bibitem{veis64}
637: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.} \bibnamefont{Veis}},
638: \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Macromolecular Chemistry of Gelatin}}
639: (\bibinfo{publisher}{Academic Press, NY}, \bibinfo{year}{1964}).
640:
641: \bibitem{coopes70}
642: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.~H.} \bibnamefont{Coopes}},
643: \bibinfo{journal}{J. Polym. Sci. A-1} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{8}},
644: \bibinfo{pages}{1793} (\bibinfo{year}{1970}).
645:
646: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Courty et~al.}(2006)\citenamefont{Courty, Tajbakhsh,
647: and Terentjev}}]{courty06}
648: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Courty}},
649: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~R.} \bibnamefont{Tajbakhsh}},
650: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~M.}
651: \bibnamefont{Terentjev}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E}
652: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{73}}, \bibinfo{pages}{011803} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}).
653:
654: \end{thebibliography}
655: \end{document}
656: