1: \documentclass[prl,amsmath,twocolumn,floatfix,showpacs]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{latexsym}
4: \usepackage{amssymb}
5: \newcommand{\lo}{\left \langle}
6: \newcommand{\rc}{\right \rangle}
7:
8: \usepackage{amssymb}
9: \begin{document}
10: \title{Can one predict DNA Transcription Start Sites by studying bubbles?}
11:
12: \author{Titus S. van Erp$^{1,2}$, Santiago Cuesta-Lopez$^{2,3}$,
13: Johannes-Geert
14: Hagmann$^{1,2}$, and Michel Peyrard$^2$}
15: \affiliation{$1$ Centre Europ\'een de Calcul Atomique et
16: Mol\'eculaire (CECAM)\\
17: $2$ Laboratoire de Physique, Ecole Normale Sup\'erieure de Lyon,
18: 46 all\'ee d'Italie, 69364 Lyon Cedex 07, France\\
19: $3$ Dept. Condensed Matter Physics and Institut of Biocomputation and
20: Complex Systems. University of Zaragoza, c/ Pedro Cerbuna s/n 50009 Spain }
21:
22:
23:
24: \begin{abstract}
25: It has been speculated that bubble formation of several base-pairs due to thermal fluctuations is indicatory for biological active sites. Recent evidence, based on experiments and molecular dynamics (MD) simulations using the Peyrard-Bishop-Dauxois model, seems to point in this direction. However, sufficiently large bubbles appear only seldom which makes an accurate calculation difficult even for minimal models. In this letter, we introduce a new method that is orders of magnitude faster than MD. Using this method we show that the present evidence is unsubstantiated.
26: \end{abstract}
27:
28: \pacs{87.15.Aa,87.15.He,05.10.-a}
29:
30: \maketitle
31: Double stranded DNA (dsDNA) is not a static entity.
32: In solution, the bonds between bases on opposite strands
33: can break even at room temperature. This can happen for
34: entire regions of the dsDNA chain, which then form
35: bubbles of several base-pairs (bp). These phenomena
36: are important
37: for biological processes such as replication and transcription.
38: The local opening of the DNA double helix at the
39: transcription start site (TSS) is
40: a crucial step
41: for the transcription of the
42: genetic code.
43: This opening is driven by proteins
44: but the
45: intrinsic fluctuations of DNA itself probably play an important role.
46: The statistical and dynamical
47: properties of these denaturation bubbles and their relation
48: to biological functions
49: have therefore been subject of many
50: experimental and theoretical studies.
51: It is known that the denaturation process of finite
52: DNA chains is not simply determined
53: by the fraction of strong (GC) or weak (AT) base-pairs.
54: The sequence specific order is important. Special sequences can have a high
55: opening rate despite a high fraction of GC base pairs \cite{Dornberger}.
56: For supercoiled DNA, it has been suggested that these sequences are related to
57: places known to be important for initiating and regulating
58: transcription~\cite{PNAS1}.
59: For dsDNA, Choi et al found
60: evidence that the formation of bubbles
61: is directly related the transcription sites~\cite{ChoiNuc2004}.
62: In particular, their results indicated that
63: the TSS could be predicted on basis of the formation probabilities
64: for bubbles of ten or more base-pairs in absence of proteins.
65: Hence, the secret of the TSS is not in the protein that reads the code,
66: but really a characteristics of DNA as expressed by the statement:
67: \emph{DNA directs its own transcription}~\cite{ChoiNuc2004}.
68: In that work,
69: S1 nuclease cleavage
70: experiments were compared with molecular dynamics (MD) simulations
71: on the Peyrard-Bishop-Dauxois (PBD) model~\cite{PB,PBD} of DNA.
72: The method used is not without limitations.
73: The
74: S1 nuclease cleavage is related to opening,
75: but many other complicated factors are involved.
76: Moreover, theoretical and computational studies have to rely on
77: simplified models and considerable computational power.
78: As the formation of large bubbles
79: occurs only seldom in a microscopic system,
80: MD or Monte Carlo (MC) methods
81: suffer from demanding computational efforts
82: to obtain sufficient accuracy.
83: Nevertheless, the probability profile found for bubbles of ten and higher
84: showed a striking correlation with the experimental results yielding
85: pronounced peaks at the TSS~\cite{ChoiNuc2004}.
86: Still, the large statistical uncertainties
87: make this correlation questionable.
88: To make the assessment absolute, we would either need extensively
89: long or exceedingly many
90: simulation runs or a different method that is significantly
91: faster than MD.
92:
93: In this letter,
94: we introduce
95: such a
96: method for the calculation of bubble statistics
97: for first neighbor interaction models like the PBD.
98: We applied it to the sequences studied in Refs.~\cite{ChoiNuc2004} and,
99: to validate the method and to compare its efficiency, we repeated
100: the MD simulations with 100 times longer runs.
101: The new method shows results consistent with MD but with a lot higher
102: accuracy than these considerably longer simulations.
103: Armed with this novel method, we make a full analysis of
104: preferential opening sites
105: for bubbles of any length.
106: This analysis shows that there is no strict analogy
107: between these preferential sites and the TSS using equilibrium statistics.
108: Hence, the previously found correlation
109: must have been either accidental or due to some non-equilibrium effect,
110: which remains speculative.
111: We discuss this issue and, more generally, the required
112: theoretical and experimental advancements that could address the
113: title's question definitely.
114:
115: The PBD model reduces the myriad degrees of freedom of DNA
116: to an one-dimensional chain of effective atom compounds
117: describing the relative base-pair
118: separations $y_i$ from the ground state positions.
119: The total potential energy $U$ for an $N$ base-pair DNA chain is then given by
120: $U(y^N)=V_1(y_1)+\sum_{i=2}^N V_i(y_i) + W(y_i,y_{i-1})$
121: with $y^N\equiv \{y_i \}$ the set of relative base pair positions and
122: \begin{eqnarray}
123: V_i(y_i) &=& D_i \Big( e^{-a_i y_i}-1\Big)^2 \\
124: W(y_i,y_{i-1}) &=& \frac{1}{2} K \Big( 1+\rho e^{-\alpha(y_i+y_{i-1})}\Big)(y_i
125: - y_{i-1})^2 \nonumber
126: \label{PBpot}
127: \end{eqnarray}
128: The first term $V_i$ is the on site Morse potential describing the
129: hydrogen bond interaction between bases on opposite strands.
130: $D_i$ and $a_i$ determine the depth and width of the Morse potential
131: and are different for the AT and GC base-pair.
132: The stacking potential $W$
133: consists of a harmonic and a nonlinear term.
134: The second term was later introduced~\cite{PBD} and mimics the effect
135: of decreasing overlap between $\pi$
136: electrons when one of two neighboring base move out of stack.
137: As a result, the effective coupling constant of the stacking interaction
138: drops from $K'=K(1+\rho)$ down to $K'=K$.
139: It is due to this term that the observed
140: sharp phase transition in denaturation
141: experiments
142: can be reproduced.
143: All interactions with the solvent and the ions
144: are effectively included in the force-field. The constants
145: $K, \rho,\alpha, D_{\rm AT}, D_{\rm GC}, a_{\rm AT}, a_{\rm GC}$
146: were parameterized in Ref.~\cite{CAGI} and tested on
147: denaturation curves of short heterogeneous DNA segments.
148: These examples show that, despite its simplified character, the model is able
149: to give a quantitative description of DNA. Most importantly, it allows
150: to study the statistical and dynamical behavior
151: of very long heterogeneous DNA sequences,
152: which is impossible for any atomistic
153: model.
154:
155: Despite these successes,
156: it is important to realize the limitations of the model.
157: The PBD model treats the A and T bases and the G and C bases as
158: identical objects. The stacking interaction is also independent of the nature
159: of the bases.
160: Moreover, there is a subtle point that needs further explanation.
161: As the PBD model basically represents
162: a single dsDNA in an infinite solution, the probability for
163: complete denaturation of a molecule of finite length,
164: resulting in two single stranded DNAs,
165: tends to unity with increasing time at \emph{any temperature}.
166: In the experiments, where the amount of solvated DNA is not
167: infinitely diluted, this effect is counterbalanced by the recombination
168: mechanism where two single stranded chains in solution come together and match
169: their complementary bases.
170: Hence, in our calculations we will restrict
171: the configurational space to the dsDNA only,
172: first of all because it is a very good
173: approximation in comparison to experiments which are not performed
174: in the immediate vicinity of the denaturation transition and, secondly,
175: because it is a necessary condition to give a relevant meaning
176: to the ensemble averages calculated within the PBD model.
177:
178:
179: In microscopic terms, a configuration $y^N$ is called a dsDNA molecule
180: when $y_i < y_0$ for at least one $i \in [1:N]$ with $y_0$ the opening
181: threshold definition.
182: Similarly, a configuration is completely denaturated whenever
183: $y_i > y_0$ for all $i$.
184: The statistical average $\lo A(y^N) \rc$
185: is equivalent to the ratio of two $N$-dimensional integrals
186: $\lo A \rc = \int \mathrm{d}y^N A(y^N) \varrho(y^N)/
187: \int \mathrm{d}y^N \varrho(y^N)$ with $\mathrm{d}y^N \equiv \mathrm{d}y_N
188: \mathrm{d}y_{N-1} \ldots \mathrm{d}y_1$ and $\varrho$ the
189: probability distribution
190: density. Numerical integration calculates these integrals explicitly, while
191: MD and MC calculates only the ratio.
192: Usually, the dimensionality of the system prohibits
193: direct numerical integration making MD and MC far favorable.
194: However, an increase of the computational efforts by a factor of two
195: reduces the error by only a factor of $\sqrt{2}$ in MD and MC, while
196: the reduction can be quite dramatic in low dimensional systems using
197: numerical integration.
198: In the following,
199: we show how to exploit this
200: by creating
201: an effective reduction of the
202: dimensions
203: yielding an orders-of-magnitude faster algorithm for the bubble statistics
204: calculation.
205: To explain the algorithm, we need to define a set of functions
206: \begin{eqnarray}
207: \theta_i(y_i)=\theta(y_i-y_0), \qquad \bar{\theta}_i(y_i)=\theta(y_0-y_i)
208: \end{eqnarray}
209: where $\theta(\cdot)$ equals the Heaviside step function. $\theta_i$ equals 1
210: if the base-pair is open and is zero otherwise.
211: $\bar{\theta}_i$ is the reverse.
212: These functions
213: indicate whether a base-pair is open or closed. Using these, we define
214: \begin{eqnarray}
215: \theta_i^{[m]} &\equiv& \bar{\theta}_{i-\frac{m}{2}}
216: \bar{\theta}_{i+\frac{m}{2
217: }+1} \prod_{j=i-\frac{m}{2}+1}^{i+\frac{m}{2}} \theta_j \textrm{ for $m$ even}
218: \nonumber \\
219: &\equiv& \bar{\theta}_{i-\frac{m+1}{2}}
220: \bar{\theta}_{i+\frac{m+1}{2}} \prod_{j
221: =i-\frac{m-1}{2}}^{i+\frac{m-1}{2}} \theta_j \textrm{ for $m$ odd}
222: \end{eqnarray}
223: which are 1 (0 otherwise) if and only if $i$ is at the center of a bubble that
224: has exactly size $m$. To shorten the notation we have dropped the $y_i$
225: dependencies.
226: For even numbers it is a bit arbitrary where to place the center,
227: but we defined it as the base
228: directly to the left of the midpoint of the bubble. In order to have these
229: quantities defined also near
230: the ends of the chain, we use $\bar{\theta}_i=1$ for $i = 0$ and $i=N+1$.
231: The properties of interest are the probabilities
232: for bubbles of size $m$ centered at base-pair $i$ provided that the molecule
233: is in the double stranded configuration.
234: \begin{eqnarray}
235: \lo \theta_i^{[m]}\rc_\mu &\equiv&
236: \frac{\lo \theta_i^{[m]} \mu \rc }{\lo \mu \rc} \quad \textrm{ with } \quad
237: \mu =1-\prod_{i=1}^N \theta_i \nonumber \\
238: &\equiv & \frac{Z_{\theta_i^{[m]}} }{Z-Z_\Pi}
239: \end{eqnarray}
240: Here $\mu=1$ except when all bases are open; then $\mu=0$.
241: The partition function integrals are given by:
242: \begin{align}
243: &Z = \int {\mathrm d} y^N e^{-\beta U(y^N)}, \quad
244: Z_{\theta_i^{[m]}} = \int {\mathrm d} y^N e^{-\beta U(y^N)}
245: \theta_i^{[m]} \nonumber \\
246: &Z_\Pi = \int {\mathrm d} y^N e^{-\beta U(y^N)} \times \prod_j
247: \theta_j.
248: \end{align}
249: Note that both $Z$ as $Z_\Pi$ are infinite, but their difference is
250: well defined.
251: Now, we can make use of the fact that all integrals $Z_X$ are of the
252: factorizable form
253: $Z_X=\int \mathrm{d} y^N a_X^{(N)}(y_N,y_{N-1})
254: \ldots a_X^{(3)}(y_{3},y_{2}) a_X^{(2)}(y_2,y_1)$
255: using following iterative scheme
256: \begin{eqnarray}
257: z^{(2)}_X(y_2) &=& \int {\mathrm d} y_1 \, a_X(y_2,y_{1}) \nonumber \\
258: z^{(3)}_X(y_3) &=& \int {\mathrm d} y_2 \, a_X(y_3,y_{2}) z^{(2)}_X(y_2)
259: \nonumber \\
260: \ldots && \nonumber \\
261: z^{(N)}_X(y_N)&=& \int {\mathrm d} y_{N-1} \, a_X(y_N,y_{N-1}) z_X^{(N-1)}
262: (y_{N-1}) \nonumber \\
263: Z_X&=& \int {\mathrm d} y_{N} \, z_X^{(N)}(y_{N}).
264: \label{sucint}
265: \end{eqnarray}
266: \begin{figure}[ht!]
267: \begin{center}
268: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig1.ps}
269: \end{center}
270: \caption{(color). The probability of bubble opening as function of bubble
271: size and position for the
272: AAVP5 promoter and the mutant sequence at 300 K.
273: Probabilities in each row are normalized
274: by a different factor $\phi(m)=\textrm{MAX}[\lo \theta_i^{[m]} \rc_\mu ]
275: \textrm{ for } i \in [1,N]$
276: given in the lower panel.
277: The 69 bp sequences start at index -46 and end at +23.
278: The TSS is at +1, the mutation is at $(+1,+2)$ were (A,T) bases
279: are replaced by (G,C).
280: Contrary to \cite{ChoiNuc2004}, the mutation effect is very local.}
281: \label{fig1}
282: \end{figure}
283: The calculation of $z_X^{(i)}(y_i)$ for a discrete set of $n_{\rm grid}$
284: values $y_i$
285: requires only $n_{\rm grid}^2$ function
286: evaluations whenever $z_X^{(i-1)}$ is known. Hence, a total
287: of $N \cdot n_{\rm grid}^2$ function evaluations are required
288: instead of $n_{\rm grid}^N$ which is a huge improvement.
289: Further increase can be obtained by introducing proper cut-offs for the
290: numerical integration.
291: We use integration boundaries such that for all $i$: $L<y_i<R$ and
292: $|y_i-y_{i-1}|<d$,
293: which we control by a single input parameter $\epsilon$:
294: $d = \sqrt{\frac{2 |\ln \epsilon|}{\beta K}}
295: $, $L= -\frac{1}{a_AT}\ln \Big[ \
296: \sqrt{ \frac{|\ln \epsilon|}{\beta D_{AT}} }+1 \Big]$, and $R=y_0+\sqrt{N}d$.
297: Any configuration outside this range but with at least one base-pair closed
298: will have a probability density smaller than $\epsilon/(Z-Z_\Pi)$.
299: A strong decrease
300: in the parameter $\epsilon$ will only marginally increase the integration
301: boundaries. We took $\epsilon=10^{-40}$ that is much smaller than
302: necessary for our accuracy.
303: After storing the following function values in matrices
304: $M_{ij}^{(AT/GC)}\equiv\exp(-\beta[V_{\rm AT/GC}(L+i \Delta y)+W(L+i\Delta y,
305: L+(i+j)\Delta y) ])$ with $0 \leq i \leq \textrm{INT}[(R-L)/\Delta y]$ and
306: $-\textrm{INT}[d/\Delta y] \leq j \leq \textrm{INT}[d/\Delta y]$
307: we can reduce the integral operations
308: for Eq.~(\ref{sucint}) (using Simpson's rule) into
309: inexpensive multiplication and addition operations
310: only.
311:
312: As a first investigation, we applied this new method
313: on the adeno-associated viral P5 promoter and the mutant
314: from Refs.~\cite{ChoiNuc2004} using $y_0=1.5$ as opening threshold
315: which corresponds to 2.1 \AA~ in real units.
316: To make the comparison with MD
317: which uses
318: periodic
319: boundary conditions (PBC), we replicated the chain at both ends,
320: but only computed the statistics for the middle chain. This approach,
321: is cheaper
322: than true PBC which scales as
323: $N \cdot (n_{\rm grid})^3$. The full probability matrix
324: $\lo \theta_i^{[m]} \rc_\mu$ was calculated for the middle sequence
325: up to bubbles of size $m=50$. A fraction of this matrix is presented
326: in Fig.~\ref{fig1} in a color plot.
327: In agreement with Ref.~\cite{ChoiNuc2004}
328: we find preferential opening probabilities at the
329: TSS site at +1
330: that vanishes after the mutation. But contrary to the
331: results of Ref.~\cite{ChoiNuc2004}, we find that the TSS is not at all
332: the most dominant opening site. Stronger opening sensitivity is found at the
333: -30 region. Moreover at variance with the previous established
334: findings, Fig.~\ref{fig1} shows that
335: the mutation effect is very local.
336: \begin{figure}[ht!]
337: \begin{center}
338: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig2.ps}
339: \end{center}
340: \caption{(color). The probabilities for bubbles larger than 10
341: bp for the AAVP5 promoter and the mutant at 300 K.
342: Both semi-PBC (three-fold replicated system) and loose ends (single chain) are
343: compared and two values for the opening threshold $y_0=1.0$ and $y_0=1.5$.
344: MD results (black) for $y_0=1.5$ with PBC are also given with
345: corresponding error-bars. A change of scale in the $y$ axis is applied
346: to include the higher openings at the free boundaries. All results agree but
347: are different from the less accurate results of \cite{ChoiNuc2004}.
348: The mutation and the free boundaries only have a local impact on the bubble
349: statistics.}
350: \label{fig2}
351: \end{figure}
352: In Fig.~\ref{fig2} we make a projection by looking at the probability
353: $P_i \equiv \sum_{m=10}^{N-1} \lo \theta_i^{[m]} \rc_\mu$
354: that at site $i$ one can find a bubble of size 10 or larger.
355: We compared different boundary conditions and two values for $y_0$.
356: In addition, we made the comparison with MD~\footnote{
357: In principle, MD suffers from the same
358: problem that it allows for complete separation. As a consequence, very
359: long MD simulations will always give erroneous results.
360: To restrict the MD to the dsDNA one can use a bias potential
361: that acts on $y_{\rm min}=\textrm{MIN}[\{y_i\}]$. For instance,
362: $V^{\rm bias}(y_{\rm min}) = (y_{\rm min}-y_0)^6 \textrm{ if } y_{\rm min} >
363: y_0$ and 0 otherwise. However, at 300 K
364: the complete denaturation occurs so seldom
365: that it was not detected in all simulations.} by
366: performing
367: 100 simulations of 100 ns with different friction constants $\gamma$
368: in the Langevin MD and 10 simulations of 1 $\mu$s
369: using Nos\'e-Hoover.
370: The curves matched within the
371: statistical errors and agreed with the integration method (see
372: for instance Fig.~\ref{fig2} where the Langevin
373: $\gamma=10$ results are plotted together with the results of the
374: integration method).
375:
376: We obtained relative errors around 10 \%
377: for Nos\'e-Hoover and
378: Langevin with $\gamma=10$ and $5$ ps$^{-1}$.
379: The errors of the $\gamma = 0.05$ ps$^{-1}$, used in Ref.~\cite{ChoiNuc2004},
380: were considerably larger due a stronger correlation between
381: successive timesteps. The results of \cite{ChoiNuc2004} were based
382: on 100 times fewer statistics. Hence, the corresponding errors in
383: \cite{ChoiNuc2004}
384: must have been
385: 10 times larger which can explain the variance
386: with our results.
387: Another explanation could be that the results of \cite{ChoiNuc2004}
388: are due to some out-of-equilibrium or dynamical effects.
389: Such effects depend strongly on the choice of initial
390: conditions, which poses the problem of defining biologically
391: significant initial conditions and determining, in a meaningful way,
392: the relevant time scale
393: along which the simulations have to be carried to detect such
394: non-equilibrium phenomena.
395:
396: The principal error in the new method is mainly
397: due to the finite integration steps.
398: To estimate the accuracy, we compared
399: $\Delta y=0.1$ and $0.05$ with the almost exact results of $\Delta y=0.025$.
400: Using the TSS peak of the AAVP5 sequence with free boundaries as reference,
401: we found that the systematic error drops
402: from $\sim 5$~\% to 0.03~\% for CPU times of 40 minutes and 3 hours only.
403: For comparison, the last accuracy would take about
404: 200 years with MD on the same machine.
405: The evaluation of larger bubbles becomes increasingly more difficult for MD.
406: Bubbles of size 20 showed statistical errors $> 100$ \% while these were
407: only slightly increased for the integration method. It is interesting to note
408: that the 10 bp size is
409: more or less the upper limit for which one get sufficient accuracy using MD, while
410: it is a lower limit were its relation to biophysics becomes
411: interesting~\cite{Murakamiscience}
412: stressing the importance of our method.
413: \begin{figure}[ht!]
414: \begin{center}
415: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig3.ps}
416: \end{center}
417: \caption{(color). Same as Fig.~\ref{fig2} for the 86 bp AdMLP and the 63 bp
418: non-promoter control sequences. The biological non-active control sequence
419: shows considerable opening probability, even more than the biological active
420: AdMLP promoter.}
421: \label{fig3}
422: \end{figure}
423: Finally, we calculated the
424: $P_i$ probabilities for the adenovirus major late promoter (AdMLP) and
425: a control non promoter sequence (Fig.~\ref{fig3}).
426: Also here, our results violate the TSS conjecture.
427: The TSS shows some opening, but cannot be assigned on basis of bubble profile
428: only.
429: Surprisingly, even
430: the control sequence shows significant opening probabilities.
431:
432: To conclude, we have shown that MD (or MC) encounters difficulties to
433: give a precise indication of preferential
434: opening sites. In particular, information of large bubbles is not easily
435: accessible using standard methods.
436: The method presented here is orders of magnitude faster than MD without
437: imposing additional approximations.
438: Using this method, we showed that the TSS is generally not the most
439: dominant opening site for bubble formation.
440: These results contradict foregoing conjectures based on less accurate
441: simulation techniques.
442: However, to address the title's question, definitely, there are still many
443: issues to be solved.
444: Still, there is some chance that bubble dynamics rather than bubble statics
445: is indicatory for the TSS. Speculatively, the previously found correlation
446: could be justified using this argument. However, a statistical significant
447: foundation for this is lacking and it is highly questionable
448: whether the PBD model and this type of Langevin dynamics
449: can give a sufficiently accurate description for the dynamics
450: of DNA.
451: The PBD model could and, probably, should be improved
452: to give a correct representation of
453: the subtile sequence specific properties of DNA.
454: Base specific stacking interaction seems to give
455: better agreement with some direct experimental observations~\cite{Santiago}.
456: Also, the development of new experimental techniques is highly desirable.
457: Our method is not limited to the PBD model or to bubble statistics
458: only, but it works whenever the
459: proper factorization~(\ref{sucint}) can be applied. Therefore, we believe
460: that the technique presented here will remain of
461: importance for the future investigations of bubbles in DNA and their biological
462: consequences.
463:
464:
465:
466:
467: We thank Dimitar Angelov and David Dubbeldam for fruitful discussions.
468: TSvE is supported
469: by a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships
470: (MEIF-CT-2003-501976) within
471: the 6th European Community Framework Programme.
472: SCL is supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and
473: Education (FPU-AP2002-3492), project BFM 2002-00113 DGES and DGA (Spain).
474:
475:
476: \bibliographystyle{prsty}
477: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
478:
479: \bibitem{Dornberger}
480: U. Dornberger, M. Leijon, and H. Fritzsche, J. Biol. Chem. {\bf 274}, 6957
481: (1999).
482:
483: \bibitem{PNAS1}
484: C.~J. Benham, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA {\bf 90}, 2999 (1993);
485: C.~J. Benham, J. Mol. Biol. {\bf 255}, 425 (1996).
486:
487: \bibitem{ChoiNuc2004}
488: C.~H. Choi {\it et~al.}, Nucl. Acid Res. {\bf 32}, 1584 (2004);
489: G. Kalosakas {\it et~al.}, Eur. Phys. Lett. {\bf 68}, 127 (2004).
490:
491: \bibitem{PB}
492: M. Peyrard and A.~R. Bishop, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 62}, 2755 (1989).
493:
494: \bibitem{PBD}
495: T. Dauxois, M. Peyrard, and A.~R. Bishop, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 47}, 684 (1993).
496:
497: \bibitem{CAGI}
498: A. Campa and A. Giansanti, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 58}, 3585 (1998).
499:
500: \bibitem{Murakamiscience}
501: K.~S. Murakami {\it et~al.}, Science, {\bf 296}, 1285 (2002).
502:
503: \bibitem{Santiago}
504: S. Cuesta-Lopez et al, to be published
505:
506: \end{thebibliography}
507:
508: \end{document}
509: