Difference between revisions of "Folded-foldamer pushing approach"
m (bulletpoints) |
m (→PROs & CONs) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
in order to assemble them via [[SPM]] ([[Top down positional assembly]]) to bigger structures. <br> | in order to assemble them via [[SPM]] ([[Top down positional assembly]]) to bigger structures. <br> | ||
* Small means: All the input parts have undergone just the first level of [[hierarchical self-assembly]]. <br> | * Small means: All the input parts have undergone just the first level of [[hierarchical self-assembly]]. <br> | ||
| − | * Structures | + | * Structures might e.g. include stiff & sturdy designed [[de-novo proteins]]. |
'''This approach competes against [[self-assembly]].''' <br> | '''This approach competes against [[self-assembly]].''' <br> | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
'''Advantages:''' <br> | '''Advantages:''' <br> | ||
| − | Basically evading development difficulties of selfassembly. E.g.no need to develop: <br> | + | Basically evading development difficulties of selfassembly. E.g. no need to develop: <br> |
– large orthogonal sets of complementary surfaces or <br> | – large orthogonal sets of complementary surfaces or <br> | ||
– [[iterative selfassembly]] <br> | – [[iterative selfassembly]] <br> | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
'''Inferiorities relative to self-assembly when working include:''' <br> | '''Inferiorities relative to self-assembly when working include:''' <br> | ||
| − | – only one product (or a few with additional difficulties) rather than several orders of magnitude simultaneously <br> | + | – only one product (or a few with additional difficulties) rather than several orders of magnitude of products simultaneously <br> |
– assembly of each new product takes long | – assembly of each new product takes long | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Relation to the direct path == | ||
| + | |||
| + | As positional assembly is introduced right after the first [[hierarchical selfassembly]] level in this approach, <br> | ||
| + | there are some similarities in directness to the [[direct path]]. <br> | ||
| + | But given the parts handled are bigger it may be easier. Size is not the only aspect of difficulty though. | ||
== Related == | == Related == | ||
| Line 31: | Line 37: | ||
* [[Positional assembly redundancy blockade]] | * [[Positional assembly redundancy blockade]] | ||
* [[Incremental path]] | * [[Incremental path]] | ||
| + | ---- | ||
* [[Top down positional assembly]] | * [[Top down positional assembly]] | ||
* [[self-assembly]], [[positional assembly]] | * [[self-assembly]], [[positional assembly]] | ||
* [[Direct path]] | * [[Direct path]] | ||
Latest revision as of 08:33, 18 September 2022
This page is about the possible approach of
pushing (or pulling if possible) small already self-assembled structures around on a surface
in order to assemble them via SPM (Top down positional assembly) to bigger structures.
- Small means: All the input parts have undergone just the first level of hierarchical self-assembly.
- Structures might e.g. include stiff & sturdy designed de-novo proteins.
This approach competes against self-assembly.
And this is a symptom of the Positional assembly redundancy blockade.
PROs & CONs
Advantages:
Basically evading development difficulties of selfassembly. E.g. no need to develop:
– large orthogonal sets of complementary surfaces or
– iterative selfassembly
– squigglesembly, circumsembly, ...
Difficulties for pushing folded proteins around by SPM may include:
– tip bluntness at the larger scale of softer proteins
– SPM control for larger vertical motions being very limited
– only perhaps: crushing the specimen issues
Inferiorities relative to self-assembly when working include:
– only one product (or a few with additional difficulties) rather than several orders of magnitude of products simultaneously
– assembly of each new product takes long
Relation to the direct path
As positional assembly is introduced right after the first hierarchical selfassembly level in this approach,
there are some similarities in directness to the direct path.
But given the parts handled are bigger it may be easier. Size is not the only aspect of difficulty though.
