Phase Transitions of Single Semistiff Polymer Chains
- 132 Downloads
- 79 Citations
Abstract
We study numerically a lattice model of semiflexible homopolymers with nearest neighbor (nn) attraction and energetic preference for straight joints between bonded monomers. For this we use a new Monte Carlo algorithm, the “prunedenriched Rosenbluth Method” (PERM). It is very efficient both for relatively open configurations at high temperatures and for compact and frozen-in low-T states. This allows us to study in detail the phase diagram as a function of nn attractionε and stiffnessx. It shows aθ-collapse line with a transition from open coils (smallε) to molten compact globules (largeε) and a freezing transition toward a state with orientational global order (large stiffnessx). Qualitatively this is similar to a recently studied mean-field theory [S. Doniach, T. Garel, and H. Orland (1996),J. Chem. Phys. 105(4), 1601], but there are important differences in details. In contrast to the mean-field theory and to naive expectations, theθ-temperatureincreases with stiffnessx. The freezing temperature increases even faster, and reaches theθ-line at a finite value ofx. For even stiffer chains, the freezing transition takes place directly, without the formation of an intermediate globular state. Although being in conflict with mean-field theory, the latter had been conjectured already by Doniachet al. on the basis of heuristic arguments and of low-statistics Monte Carlo simulations. Finally, we discuss the relevance of the present model as a very crude model for protein folding.
Key words
Polymers protein folding phase transitionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.T. E. Creighton,Protein Folding (W.H. Freeman, New York, 1992).Google Scholar
- 2.S. Doniach, T. Garel, and H. Orland,J. Chem. Phys. 105:1601 (1996).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 3.P. G. De Gennes,Scaling Concepts in Polymer Physics (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1988).Google Scholar
- 4.P. J. Flory,Proc. Roy. Soc. A 234:60 (1956).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 5.A. BaumgÄrtner and D. Y. Yoon,J. Chem. Phys. 79:521 (1983).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 6.D. Y. Yoon and A. BaumgÄrtner,Macromolecules 17:2864 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.A. BaumgÄrtner,J. Chem. Phys. 84(3):1905 (1986).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 8.A. Kolinski, J. Skolnick, and Y. Yaris,Procl. Natl. Acad. Sci. 83:7267 (1986).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 9.A. Kolinski, J. Skolnick, and Y. Yaris,J. Chem. Phys. 85:3585 (1986).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 10.M. L. Mansfield,Macromolecules 27:4699 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.A. Moskalenko, Yu. A. Kuznetsov, and K. A. Dawson,J. Phys. II France 7:409 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.P. Grassberger,Phys. Rev. E 56:3682 (1996).CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 13.P. Grassberger, to be published (1997).Google Scholar
- 14.H. Frauenkron and P. Grassberger, preprint cond-mat/9707101 (1997).Google Scholar
- 15.P. Grassberger and R. Hegger,J. Chem. Phys. 102:6881 (1995).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 16.M. N. Rosenbluth and A. W. Rosenbluth,J. Chem. Phys. 23:356 (1955).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.J. Batoulis and K. Kremer,J. Phys. A 21:127 (1988).CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 18.F. T. Wall and J. J. Erpenbeck,J. Chem. Phys. 30:634 (1959).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 19.P. P. Nidras and R. Brak,J. Phys. A 30:1457 (1997).MATHCrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 20.B. Li, N. Madras, and A. Sokal,J. Stat. Phys. 80:661 (1995).MATHCrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 21.R. Dickman,J. Chem. Phys. 87:2246 (1987).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 22.H. Frauenkron, U. Bastolla, P. Grassberger, E. Gerstner, and W. Nadler, preprint condmat/90705146(1997).Google Scholar