Related papers: Comment on "Can one predict DNA Transcription Star…
A Comment on the Letter by D. Hemanth Kumar et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 144301 (2004)
Discussion of "Likelihood Inference for Models with Unobservables: Another View" by Youngjo Lee and John A. Nelder [arXiv:1010.0303]
We comment on a recent paper by the LEPS2/BGOegg Collaboration [Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 202501 (2020), arXiv:2005.03449].
Comment on the Letter ``Polynomial-Time Simulation of Pairing Models on a Quantum Computer'', L. A. Wu, M. S. Byrd and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 057904 (2002).
In this paper we provide an alternative approach to the works of the physicists S. Cocco and R. Monasson about a model of DNA molecules. The aim is to predict the sequence of bases by mechanical stimulations. The model described by the…
We analyze in great detail the mathematical derivations from the article "Doppler signature in electrodynamic retarded potentials" by Giovanni Perosa, Simone Di Mitri, William A. Barletta, and Fulvio Parmigiani, published in Physics Open…
This is a reply to the comment by Gilbert and Sanders [arXiv:1111.6271 (2011)]. We point out that their comment is a follow-up of a previous discussion which we briefly summarize before we refute their new criticism.
We present a general framework to study the thermodynamic denaturation of double-stranded DNA under superhelical stress. We report calculations of position- and size-dependent opening probabilities for bubbles along the sequence. Our…
We study the propagation of very large amplitude localized excitations in a model of DNA that takes explicitly into account the helicoidal structure. These excitations represent the ``transcription bubble'', where the hydrogen bonds between…
It is shown that the various claims made in the comment by M. Ya. Azbel (physics/0403106) on the two publications Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 055502 (2003) and Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4988 (2000) are invalid. They are a result of a misinterpretation…
We reply to the comments on our previous paper Physical Review Letters, Vol. 129, 087001 (2022), raised by Th\'eo S\'epulcre, Serge Florens, and Izak Snyman in arXiv:2210.00742.
Recently K. Banaszek, I. A. Walmsley, K. Wodkiewicz (quant-ph/0012097) commented on our Proposal for the Measurement of Bell-Type Correlations from Continuous Variables [T. C. Ralph, W. J. Munro, R. E. S. Polkinghorne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85,…
The Comment by Duval et al. [PRL 96, 099701 (2006)] addresses an important, but not the main, result of our Letter [PRL 95, 137204 (2005)]. It does not contradict our results in substance, and the only objection is really on the style of…
Comment on K.J Thomas et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 135-138 (1996).
Here we give our reply to the comment by Sibirtsev et al on our paper ``Mass and K-Lambda Coupling of the N*(1535)".
We reply to Dukelsky, et al. regarding the article: L. A. Wu, M. S. Byrd and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 057904 (2002).
Comment on ``On Random Scan Gibbs Samplers'' [arXiv:0808.3852]
A solid-state nanopore can electrophoretically capture a DNA molecule and pull it through in a folded configuration. The resulting ionic current signal indicates where along its length the DNA was captured. A statistical study using an 8 nm…
We reply to the criticisms of our publication (N. Hasegawa, K. Hagino, and Y. Tanimura, Phys. Lett. B808, 135693 (2020)) made by A. Ono in his recent article, arXiv:2201.02966.
A reply to the comment by V. R. Shaginyan et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 279701 (2011), arXiv:1206.5372] on our article [Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 137002 (2011), arXiv:1012.0303].