Difference between revisions of "Folded-foldamer pushing approach"
m (bulletpoints) |
m |
||
| 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> | ||
Revision as of 12:16, 17 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 simultaneously
– assembly of each new product takes long
