4.8 Article

Percolation Theory Reveals Biophysical Properties of Virus-like Particles

期刊

ACS NANO
卷 15, 期 8, 页码 12988-12995

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.1c01882

关键词

virus-like particle; virus disassembly; percolation theory; virus nanotechnology; generalized quasi-equivalence principle

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/R023204/1]
  2. Royal Society Wolfson Fellowship [RSWF/R1/180009]
  3. Wellcome Trust
  4. University of Leeds [110145, 110146]
  5. Wolfram Research
  6. EPSRC [EP/R023204/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The genetic material of a virus is encapsulated in viral protein containers, which can be repurposed as virus-like particles in various nanotechnology applications, balancing stability for protection and instability for efficient release. The geometric characteristics of viral capsids, such as subunit layout and intersubunit interaction network, play a key role in disassembly behavior, with specific viral geometries favored in nature and offering guidance for virus-like particle design in nanotechnology.
The viral protein containers that encapsulate a virus' genetic material are repurposed as virus-like particles in a host of nanotechnology applications, including cargo delivery, storage, catalysis, and vaccination. These viral architectures have evolved to sit on the knife's edge between stability, to provide adequate protection for their genetic cargoes, and instability, to enable their efficient and timely release in the host cell environment upon environmental cues. By introducing a percolation theory for viral capsids, we demonstrate that the geometric characteristics of a viral capsid in terms of its subunit layout and intersubunit interaction network are key for its disassembly behavior. A comparative analysis of all alternative homogeneously tiled capsid structures of the same stoichiometry identifies evolutionary drivers favoring specific viral geometries in nature and offers a guide for virus-like particle design in nanotechnology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据