Quantum tunneling of Davydov solitons through massive barriers
Danko D. Georgieva,∗, James F. Glazebrookb
arXiv:1904.09822v1 [physics.bio-ph] 19 Apr 2019
b Department
a Institute for Advanced Study, Varna, Bulgaria
of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL 61920, USA
Abstract
Protein clamps provide the cell with effective mechanisms for sensing of environmental changes and triggering
adaptations that maintain homeostasis. The general physical mechanism behind protein clamping action,
however, is poorly understood. Here, we explore the Davydov model for quantum transport of amide I
energy, which is self-trapped in soliton states that propagate along the protein α-helix spines and preserve
their shape upon reflection from the α-helix ends. We study computationally whether the Davydov solitons
are able to reflect from massive barriers that model the presence of external protein clamps acting on a
portion of the α-helix, and characterize the range of barrier conditions for which the Davydov solitons are
capable of tunneling through the barrier. The simulations showed that the variability of amino acid masses
in proteins has a negligible effect on Davydov soliton dynamics, but a massive barrier that is a hundred
times the mass of a single amino acid presents an obstacle for the soliton propagation. The greater width
of Davydov solitons stabilizes the soliton upon reflection from such a massive barrier and increases the
probability of tunneling through it, whereas the greater isotropy of the exciton-lattice coupling suppresses
the tunneling efficiency by increasing the interaction time between the Davydov soliton and the barrier,
thereby prolonging the tunneling time through the barrier and enhancing the probability for reflection
from the latter. The results as presented, demonstrate the feasibility of Davydov solitons reflecting from
or tunneling through massive barriers, and suggest a general physical mechanism underlying the action of
protein clamps through local enhancement of an effective protein α-helix mass.
Keywords: Davydov soliton, massive barrier, protein α-helix, protein clamp, quantum tunneling
1. Introduction
Proteins are the molecular nano-engines that support all activities essential to life [1–4]. Protein-protein
interactions regulate key biochemical processes, including DNA replication, repair and transcription, mRNA
translation, protein sorting and transport, metabolic pathways, cellular signaling, sensing of environmental
changes and triggering adaptations that maintain homeostasis [5–7]. Functional protein complexes are often
clamped in an inactive meta-stable state that can be readily activated by signaling cascades triggering
the release of the inhibitory clamp. Neurotransmission at active synapses in the brain is an example of a
biological process that is tightly regulated by protein clamps, such as synaptotagmin and complexin [8],
which inhibit the SNARE protein complex that drives synaptic vesicle exocytosis in the absence of electric
spikes, but de-inhibit and assist the SNARE complex function upon electric excitation of the presynaptic
axonal button [9–11]. Protein clamps that inhibit electric excitability and the flow of Ca2+ currents through
neuronal membrane-bound receptors [12] or voltage-gated ion channels [13] are also known. Predicting
protein–protein interactions [14] and elucidating the mechanisms behind protein clamping action [15, 16],
are important open problems currently under investigation.
∗ Corresponding
author
Email addresses:
[email protected] (Danko D. Georgiev),
[email protected] (James F. Glazebrook)
Preprint submitted to Chaos, Solitons & Fractals
April 9, 2019
In the quest for a general physical mechanism behind protein clamping action, the aim of this present
work is to study the transport of amide I vibrational energy in proteins as propagated by Davydov solitons
[17–27], where the presence of massive barriers is taken into account. For a single α-helix spine of hydrogenbonded peptide groups, the generalized Davydov Hamiltonian is
X
1 X p̂2n
2
†
†
†
E0 ân ân − J ân ân+1 + ân ân−1 +
Ĥ =
+ w (ûn+1 − ûn )
2 n Mn
n
X
+χ
[ûn+1 + (ξ − 1) ûn − ξ ûn−1 ] â†n ân
(1)
n
where the index n counts the peptide groups along the α-helix spine, â†n and ân are the boson creation and
annihilation operators respectively for the amide I exciton, E0 = 32.8 zJ (zeptojoule) is the amide I exciton
energy, J = 0.155 zJ is the nearest neighbor exciton dipole-dipole coupling energy along the spine, Mn is
the mass, p̂n is the momentum operator and ûn is the displacement operator from the equilibrium position
2
of the nth peptide group, w is the spring constant of the hydrogen bonds in the lattice [17–24], χ = χ̄ 1+ξ
is an anharmonic parameter arising from the coupling between the amide I exciton and the phonon lattice
l
displacements, χ̄ = χr +χ
is the average of the right χr and left χl coupling parameters, and ξ = χχrl is the
2
isotropy parameter of the exciton-lattice coupling (χr 6= 0 and 0 ≤ χl ≤ χr , hence ξ varies in the interval
[0, 1]) [28, 29].
The quantum equations of motion can be derived from the Hamiltonian (1) with the use of the second
of Davydov’s ansatz state vectors [19, 30–32]
P
X
ı
(2)
|D2 (t)i =
an (t)â†n |0ex ie− ~ j (bj (t)p̂j −cj (t)ûj ) |0ph i
n
which provides an excellent approximation [29, 30] to the exact solution of the Schrödinger equation
ı~
d
|D2 (t)i = Ĥ|D2 (t)i
dt
(3)
The expectation value of the exciton number operator N̂n = â†n ân at the peptide group n is
hN̂n i = hD2 (t)|N̂n |D2 (t)i = |an |2
(4)
The total probability of finding the amide I excition inside the protein should be normalized, n |an |2 = 1.
The latter condition ensures that the Davydov’s ansatz is normalized as well, hD2 (t)|D2 (t)i = 1.
With the use of the Hadamard lemma
iii
ii 1 h h h
i 1 h h
h
+ ...
(5)
Â, Â, B̂ +
Â, Â, Â, B̂
e B̂e− = B̂ + Â, B̂ +
2!
3!
the expectation values of the phonon displacement and momentum operators, ûn and p̂n , are found to be
P
hûn i
hp̂n i
=
=
hD2 (t)|ûn |D2 (t)i = bn
hD2 (t)|p̂n |D2 (t)i = cn
(6)
(7)
Applying the generalized Ehrenfest theorem for the time dynamics of the expectation values
h
i
d
ı~ bn = h ûn , Ĥ i
(8)
dt
h
i
d
ı~ cn = h p̂n , Ĥ i
(9)
dt
together with the Schrödinger equation (3), leads to the following system of gauge transformed quantum
equations of motion (for detailed derivation see [29, 33, 34]):
dan
dt
=
d2
bn
dt2
=
ı~
Mn
−J (an+1 + an−1 ) + χ [bn+1 + (ξ − 1)bn − ξbn−1 ] an
2
2
2
w bn−1 − 2bn + bn+1 ) − χ |an−1 | + (ξ − 1) |an | − ξ |an+1 |
2
(10)
(11)
where an is the quantum probability amplitude of the amide I exciton at the nth site and bn is the expectation
value of the longitudinal displacement from the equilibrium position of the nth peptide group.
2. Computational study
2.1. Model parameters
We have computationally simulated the system of Davydov equations for a protein α-helix spine with
n = 40 peptide groups, w = 13 N/m [22, 35–37] and χ̄ = 35 pN (piconewton) [24]. The method
for numerical integration was LSODA, Livermore Solver for Ordinary Differential equations with Automatic selection between nonstiff (Adams) and stiff (Backward Differentiation Formula, BDF) methods,
developed by Hindmarsh and Petzold [38–41]. LSODA implements an algorithm that uses the nonstiff
method initially, then followed by dynamical monitoring of the data in order to decide which method
to use at the end of each step of the integration. If the problem changes character (i.e., from nonstiff to stiff or vice versa) in the interval of integration, the solver automatically switches to the method
(Adams or BDF) which is likely to be most efficient for that part of the problem [38]. Solitons with different widths were produced by different normalized initial Gaussian distributions σ of amide I energy
spread over 1, 3, 5 or 7 peptide groups
such
√ that√the corresponding
√
√quantum
√ probability
√
√ amplitudes
√
0.244,
0.512,
0.244},
{
0.099,
0.24,
0.322,
0.24,
0.099} and
for
the
non-zero
a
(0)
were:
{1},
{
n
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
{ 0.059, 0.126, 0.199, 0.232, 0.199, 0.126, 0.059}. The lattice of hydrogen bonds was initially unperturbed, bn (0) = 0 and dbndt(0) = 0 [29]. To model a real protein α-helix, the peptide groups at the N-end
or C-end were coupled to a single neighbor, that is, there were no peptide groups with index n = 0 or
n = 41. This effectively creates reflective boundaries at the protein α-helix ends. It had been previously
shown that the same set of initial conditions for the amide I exciton and phonon lattice leads to stationary
solitons when the protein α-helix is modeled with periodic boundary conditions that effectively compactify
the α-helix spine into a circle [29].
Previous studies of Davydov solitons modeled the amino acid residues as having equal mass, taken to
be the average mass of an amino acid inside the protein α-helix, namely, M = 0.19 zg (zeptogram). This
modeling assumption is feasible because the biochemical variability of amino acid masses is in the range
1 ± 0.64M (Table 1) and has minor effects on the dynamics of the soliton [42–44].
Our simulations, in which the mass of all amino acid residues was doubled iteratively, showed that
increasing the amino acid mass outside of the biochemical variability range decreases the average soliton
speed v. As an example, a Davydov soliton with ξ = 1 whose width is σ = 5 propagates with speed v = 314
m/s for Mn = 1M , v = 298 m/s for Mn = 2M , v = 269 m/s for Mn = 4M , v = 235 m/s for Mn = 8M ,
and v = 178 m/s for Mn = 16M (Fig. 1). The increased amino acid mass also introduces fluctuations of
the soliton speed at a timescale of 10 − 20 ps (Fig. 1d) due to stronger interaction with the lattice phonon
waves. Taking into consideration these preliminary simulations, we have concluded that setting the amino
acid residues as having equal mass of 1M provides a good base model on top of which can be added massive
barriers towards representing external protein clamping action on the α-helix.
2.2. Effect of soliton width on reflection from barriers
The width of massive barriers for all subsequent simulations was fixed to three peptide groups. The
placement of the barrier was such that the free α-helix on one side is twice as long as the free α-helix on
the other side, in particular, the barrier spanned peptide groups n = 13 − 15 or n = 26 − 28 depending on
whether the soliton is launched from the C-end or the N-end of the helix, respectively.
Simulations with isotropic exciton-lattice coupling ξ = 1 for a wide range (1 − 1500 M) of effective
peptide group masses inside a rectangular barrier (all peptide groups inside the barrier having equal mass),
showed that the greater width σ of the Davydov soliton stabilizes the soliton upon reflection from the barrier
and prevents disintegration (Figs. 2, 3 and 4). The soliton with width σ = 3 is able to bounce a couple
of times from massive barriers below 600 M before it disintegrates at a timescale of 100 ps (Fig. 2). The
soliton with width σ = 5 is stable in the presence of massive barriers below 900 M and the soliton can either
bounce off the barrier or tunnel through the barrier (Fig. 3a–d, Videos 1–4). The number of bounces off
3
b
2M
4M
400
400
300
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
a
200
200
0.5
100
100
0.4
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
c
10
20
30
40
0.3
Peptide group (n)
0.2
d
8M
400
16 M
400
0.1
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
300
200
100
0
200
100
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
10
20
30
40
Peptide group (n)
Figure 1: Soliton dynamics visualized through |an |2 for different masses of the amino acid residues 2M , 4M , 8M or 16M , for
the isotropic exciton-lattice coupling ξ = 1 launched by a Gaussian of amide I energy σ = 5 applied at the N-end of an α-helix
spine composed of 40 peptide groups during a period of 400 ps.
4
Table 1: Properties of amino acid residues in protein α-helices.
Amino acid
Alanine
Arginine
Leucine
Methionine
Lysine
Glutamine
Glutamate
Isoleucine
Tryptophan
Serine
Tyrosine
Phenylalanine
Histidine
Valine
Asparagine
Threonine
Cysteine
Aspartate
Glycine
Proline
Code
A
R
L
M
K
Q
E
I
W
S
Y
F
H
V
N
T
C
D
G
P
Helical penalty (kJ/mol) [45]
0.00
0.88
0.88
1.00
1.09
1.63
1.67
1.72
2.05
2.09
2.22
2.26
2.55
2.55
2.72
2.76
2.85
2.89
4.18
13.22
Mass (Da)
71
156
113
131
128
128
129
113
186
87
163
147
137
99
114
101
103
115
57
97
Mass (M = 0.19 zg)
0.63
1.37
0.99
1.15
1.13
1.13
1.14
0.99
1.64
0.77
1.43
1.29
1.21
0.87
1.00
0.89
0.91
1.01
0.50
0.85
the barrier before successful tunneling increases with the mass of the barrier. As an example, for 300 M
barrier the soliton with width σ = 5, bounces once before tunneling (Fig. 3b, Video 2), whereas for 600 M
barrier the soliton bounces twice before tunneling (Fig. 3c, Video 3). Conversely, the number of bounces
off the barrier before successful tunneling decreases when the width of the soliton increases (Fig. 4). A
further example is the soliton with width σ = 7 that bounces once before tunneling through 1000 M barrier
(Fig. 4c), whereas the soliton with width σ = 5, bounces twice before tunneling through a much lower 600 M
barrier (Fig. 3c). Thus, these results demonstrate that the soliton width increases stability upon reflection,
increases probability for tunneling and delays dispersion. The results also suggest that the energy released
by ATP hydrolysis in biological systems should be advantageously delivered as a Gaussian pulse to several
amide I groups (e.g. σ = 5), rather than concentrated into a single amide I exciton (σ = 1).
Previous theoretical research utilizing the continuum approximation [17–24] reduced the discrete system
of the Davydov equations to a non-linear Schrödinger equation (NLSE), which admits sech2 -shaped soliton
solutions that can be obtained with the inverse scattering transform and allied techniques in perturbation
theory for nearly integrable systems [46, 47]. Because the soliton width determines the energy of Davydov
solitons, the tunneling processes depend essentially on the ratio between the energy of the tunneling ‘particle’
(soliton) and energetic characteristics of the potential barrier. In nonlinear tunneling processes, the ‘tails’ of
solitons play important role (cf. [48, 49]), and this is also confirmed by our numerical results of the discrete
system of the Davydov equations. In fact, our numerical results validate the continuum approximation used
for deriving the NLSE in the case of biologically realistic, short protein α-helices, whereas analytical study of
the NLSE in turn provides a qualitative explanation of the observed nonlinear phenomena in the presented
numerical simulations. In particular, studies of NLSE with impurities confirm that the greater soliton width
is able to promote the tunneling [50, 51], whereas the time evolution of different initial excitations for the
concrete values of parameters in the Davydov NLSE model of one-dimensional molecular chains, confirms
that initial excitations that better resemble the sech2 soliton shape exhibit a lower threshold for soliton
formation, i.e. a Gaussian pulse enacted upon several amide I groups is expected to be more advantageous
for generating solitons in comparison with the excitation of a single amide I group [52–54].
5
b
1M
300 M
400
400
300
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
a
200
200
0.5
100
100
0.4
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
c
10
20
30
40
0.3
Peptide group (n)
0.2
d
600 M
400
900 M
400
0.1
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
300
200
100
0
200
100
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
10
20
30
40
Peptide group (n)
Figure 2: Soliton reflection from massive barriers extending over three peptide groups n = 26 − 28, each of which with effective
mass of 1M (no barrier), 300M , 600M or 900M , for the isotropic exciton-lattice coupling ξ = 1 launched by a Gaussian of
amide I energy σ = 3 applied at the N-end of an α-helix spine composed of 40 peptide groups during a period of 400 ps. The
barrier location is indicated with thin vertical lines.
6
b
1M
300 M
400
400
300
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
a
200
200
0.5
100
100
0.4
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
c
10
20
30
40
0.3
Peptide group (n)
0.2
d
600 M
400
900 M
400
0.1
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
300
200
100
0
200
100
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
10
20
30
40
Peptide group (n)
Figure 3: Soliton reflection from massive barriers extending over three peptide groups n = 26 − 28, each of which with effective
mass of 1M (no barrier), 300M , 600M or 900M , for the isotropic exciton-lattice coupling ξ = 1 launched by a Gaussian of
amide I energy σ = 5 applied at the N-end of an α-helix spine composed of 40 peptide groups during a period of 400 ps. The
barrier location is indicated with thin vertical lines.
7
b
1M
500 M
400
400
300
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
a
200
200
0.5
100
100
0.4
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
c
10
20
30
40
0.3
Peptide group (n)
0.2
d
1000 M
400
1500 M
400
0.1
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
300
200
100
0
200
100
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
10
20
30
40
Peptide group (n)
Figure 4: Soliton reflection from massive barriers extending over three peptide groups n = 26 − 28, each of which with effective
mass of 1M (no barrier), 500M , 1000M or 1500M , for the isotropic exciton-lattice coupling ξ = 1 launched by a Gaussian of
amide I energy σ = 7 applied at the N-end of an α-helix spine composed of 40 peptide groups during a period of 400 ps. The
barrier location is indicated with thin vertical lines.
8
2.3. Effect of anisotropy of the exciton-lattice coupling on tunneling time
Full isotropy of the exciton-lattice coupling ξ = 1 makes the soliton dynamics mirror symmetric in
respect to launching from the N-end or the C-end of the α-helix. When the isotropy is partial, ξ < 1, the
mirror symmetry of the soliton dynamics is violated. Therefore, in order to be exhaustive in our analysis of
anisotropic exciton-lattice coupling, we have simulated soliton tunneling through a massive barrier from the
left and from the right (Figs. 5 and 6). The higher value for the isotropy parameter ξ prolongs significantly
the tunneling time for both left and right crossing of the barrier. As an example, the soliton with width
σ = 5 tunnels through 200 M barrier from left to right for 16 ps when ξ = 0 (Fig. 5a) and 24.5 ps when
ξ = 1 (Fig. 5d). Because the higher value of ξ increases the soliton speed, the soliton launched from the
N-end of the α-helix with ξ = 1 reaches the barrier earlier, and then exits on the other side of the barrier
earlier than the soliton with ξ = 0, despite the longer tunneling time required when ξ = 1. In the case of
anisotropic exciton-lattice coupling ξ = 0, the soliton speed is slightly faster when moving from left to right
(216 m/s, Fig. 5a), as opposed to moving from right to left (214 m/s, Fig. 6a). The tunneling from right to
left of solitons launched from the C-end of the α-helix is qualitatively similar, but when ξ = 0 the soliton
widens to a greater extent at the exit of the other side of the massive barrier (Fig. 6a) in comparison to
the case of tunneling from left to right (Fig. 5a). Thus, even though the anisotropy of the exciton-lattice
coupling speeds up the tunneling times, the overall transport of energy through massive barriers could be
delayed in comparison to the fully isotropic case.
2.4. Effect of anisotropy of the exciton-lattice coupling on tunneling probability
The overall effect of the isotropy parameter ξ on the transport of energy across massive barriers includes
the tunneling probability as an additional factor that operates together with the tunneling time and the
soliton speed. From simulations with sufficiently massive barriers that are capable of reflecting the soliton,
it was determined that higher values of ξ decrease the probability of soliton tunneling, and increase the
probability of reflection. As an example, the soliton with width σ = 5 tunnels through 400 M barrier
without reflection when ξ = 0 (Figs. 7a and 8a), whereas it reflects once before tunneling through the
barrier when ξ = 1 (Figs. 7d and 8d). Thus, for very massive barriers the anisotropy of the exciton-lattice
coupling could speed up the overall transport of energy through the barrier due to increased probability of
tunneling in comparison to the fully isotropic case.
2.5. Effect of anisotropy of the exciton-lattice coupling on soliton stability
The higher values of the isotropy parameter ξ lead to decreased stability of the solitons upon reflection
from massive barriers. Comparison of simulations with ξ = 1 (the soliton dynamics is mirror symmetric for
launching from the N-end versus launching from the C-end of the α-helix) or ξ = 0 (the soliton dynamics
is not mirror symmetric), shows that for sufficiently massive barriers, repetitive bouncing of the soliton
leads to soliton destabilization and dispersion more easily when the isotropy parameter ξ has higher values.
As an example, the soliton with width σ = 3 impacting upon a 900 M barrier for ξ = 1, bounces once
before its dispersion (Fig. 2d), whereas for ξ = 0, it bounces twice on the right of the barrier (Fig. 10d), or
bounces thrice on the left of the barrier (Fig. 9d). Thus, the presence of structural anisotropy in the chain
of hydrogen bonded peptide groups along the α-helix spine
···H − N − C = O···H − N − C = O···H − N − C = O···
which leads to stronger coupling of the amide I exciton (C = O group) to the hydrogen bond on the right
(−C = O · · · H) as compared to the hydrogen bond on the left (O · · · H − N − C = O), namely, χr > χl [55],
could effectively enhance the stability of solitons bouncing off massive barriers as created by the presence
of external protein clamps acting on the protein α-helix. The dependence of the soliton stability on the
direction of barrier impact, also shows that protein α-helices with anisotropic exciton-lattice coupling (ξ < 1)
may then have a preferential direction for transmission of energy inside proteins.
Simulations with wider solitons σ = 5 (Figs. 3, 11 and 12) or σ = 7 (Figs. 4, 13 and 14) corroborate the
findings that the higher ξ increases both the soliton instability upon barrier impact and the probability for
reflection from the massive barrier. This further highlights the need of improved ab initio quantum chemical
calculations for determining of the exact value of the isotropy parameter ξ = χχrl .
9
ξ=0
ξ = 0.3
b
80
80
60
60
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
a
40
40
0.5
20
20
0.4
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
20
30
40
0.3
Peptide group (n)
ξ = 0.6
c
10
80
0.2
ξ=1
d
80
0.1
60
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
60
40
20
0
40
20
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
10
20
30
40
Peptide group (n)
Figure 5: Soliton tunneling through a massive barrier extending over three peptide groups n = 26 − 28, each of which with
effective mass of 200M , for different values of the isotropy parameter ξ = {0, 0.3, 0.6, 1} launched by a Gaussian of amide I
energy σ = 5 applied at the N-end of an α-helix spine composed of 40 peptide groups during a period of 80 ps. The barrier
location is indicated with thin vertical lines.
10
ξ=0
ξ = 0.3
b
80
80
60
60
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
a
40
40
0.5
20
20
0.4
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
20
30
40
0.3
Peptide group (n)
ξ = 0.6
c
10
80
0.2
ξ=1
d
80
0.1
60
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
60
40
20
0
40
20
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
10
20
30
40
Peptide group (n)
Figure 6: Soliton tunneling through a massive barrier extending over three peptide groups n = 13 − 15, each of which with
effective mass of 200M , for different values of the isotropy parameter ξ = {0, 0.3, 0.6, 1} launched by a Gaussian of amide I
energy σ = 5 applied at the C-end of an α-helix spine composed of 40 peptide groups during a period of 80 ps. The barrier
location is indicated with thin vertical lines.
11
ξ=0
ξ = 0.3
b
400
400
300
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
a
200
200
0.5
100
100
0.4
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
20
30
40
0.3
Peptide group (n)
ξ = 0.6
c
10
400
0.2
ξ=1
d
400
0.1
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
300
200
100
0
200
100
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
10
20
30
40
Peptide group (n)
Figure 7: Soliton tunneling through a massive barrier extending over three peptide groups n = 26 − 28, each of which with
effective mass of 400M , for different values of the isotropy parameter ξ = {0, 0.3, 0.6, 1} launched by a Gaussian of amide I
energy σ = 5 applied at the N-end of an α-helix spine composed of 40 peptide groups during a period of 400 ps. The barrier
location is indicated with thin vertical lines.
12
ξ=0
ξ = 0.3
b
400
400
300
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
a
200
200
0.5
100
100
0.4
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
20
30
40
0.3
Peptide group (n)
ξ = 0.6
c
10
400
0.2
ξ=1
d
400
0.1
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
300
200
100
0
200
100
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
10
20
30
40
Peptide group (n)
Figure 8: Soliton tunneling through a massive barrier extending over three peptide groups n = 13 − 15, each of which with
effective mass of 400M , for different values of the isotropy parameter ξ = {0, 0.3, 0.6, 1} launched by a Gaussian of amide I
energy σ = 5 applied at the C-end of an α-helix spine composed of 40 peptide groups during a period of 400 ps. The barrier
location is indicated with thin vertical lines.
13
b
1M
300 M
400
400
300
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
a
200
200
0.5
100
100
0.4
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
c
10
20
30
40
0.3
Peptide group (n)
0.2
d
600 M
400
900 M
400
0.1
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
300
200
100
0
200
100
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
10
20
30
40
Peptide group (n)
Figure 9: Soliton reflection from massive barriers extending over three peptide groups n = 26 − 28, each of which with effective
mass of 1M (no barrier), 300M , 600M or 900M , for the anisotropic exciton-lattice coupling ξ = 0 launched by a Gaussian of
amide I energy σ = 3 applied at the N-end of an α-helix spine composed of 40 peptide groups during a period of 400 ps. The
barrier location is indicated with thin vertical lines.
14
b
1M
300 M
400
400
300
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
a
200
200
0.5
100
100
0.4
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
c
10
20
30
40
0.3
Peptide group (n)
0.2
d
600 M
400
900 M
400
0.1
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
300
200
100
0
200
100
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
10
20
30
40
Peptide group (n)
Figure 10: Soliton reflection from massive barriers extending over three peptide groups n = 13 − 15, each of which with effective
mass of 1M (no barrier), 300M , 600M or 900M , for the anisotropic exciton-lattice coupling ξ = 0 launched by a Gaussian of
amide I energy σ = 3 applied at the C-end of an α-helix spine composed of 40 peptide groups during a period of 400 ps. The
barrier location is indicated with thin vertical lines.
15
b
1M
300 M
400
400
300
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
a
200
200
0.5
100
100
0.4
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
c
10
20
30
40
0.3
Peptide group (n)
0.2
d
600 M
400
900 M
400
0.1
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
300
200
100
0
200
100
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
10
20
30
40
Peptide group (n)
Figure 11: Soliton reflection from massive barriers extending over three peptide groups n = 26 − 28, each of which with effective
mass of 1M (no barrier), 300M , 600M or 900M , for the anisotropic exciton-lattice coupling ξ = 0 launched by a Gaussian of
amide I energy σ = 5 applied at the N-end of an α-helix spine composed of 40 peptide groups during a period of 400 ps. The
barrier location is indicated with thin vertical lines.
16
b
1M
300 M
400
400
300
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
a
200
200
0.5
100
100
0.4
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
c
10
20
30
40
0.3
Peptide group (n)
0.2
d
600 M
400
900 M
400
0.1
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
300
200
100
0
200
100
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
10
20
30
40
Peptide group (n)
Figure 12: Soliton reflection from massive barriers extending over three peptide groups n = 13 − 15, each of which with effective
mass of 1M (no barrier), 300M , 600M or 900M , for the anisotropic exciton-lattice coupling ξ = 0 launched by a Gaussian of
amide I energy σ = 5 applied at the C-end of an α-helix spine composed of 40 peptide groups during a period of 400 ps. The
barrier location is indicated with thin vertical lines.
17
b
1M
500 M
400
400
300
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
a
200
200
0.5
100
100
0.4
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
c
10
20
30
40
0.3
Peptide group (n)
0.2
d
1000 M
400
1500 M
400
0.1
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
300
200
100
0
200
100
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
10
20
30
40
Peptide group (n)
Figure 13: Soliton reflection from massive barriers extending over three peptide groups n = 26 − 28, each of which with effective
mass of 1M (no barrier), 300M , 600M or 900M , for the anisotropic exciton-lattice coupling ξ = 0 launched by a Gaussian of
amide I energy σ = 7 applied at the N-end of an α-helix spine composed of 40 peptide groups during a period of 400 ps. The
barrier location is indicated with thin vertical lines.
18
b
1M
500 M
400
400
300
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
a
200
200
0.5
100
100
0.4
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
c
10
20
30
40
0.3
Peptide group (n)
0.2
d
1000 M
400
1500 M
400
0.1
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
300
200
100
0
200
100
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
10
20
30
40
Peptide group (n)
Figure 14: Soliton reflection from massive barriers extending over three peptide groups n = 13 − 15, each of which with effective
mass of 1M (no barrier), 300M , 600M or 900M , for the anisotropic exciton-lattice coupling ξ = 0 launched by a Gaussian of
amide I energy σ = 7 applied at the C-end of an α-helix spine composed of 40 peptide groups during a period of 400 ps. The
barrier location is indicated with thin vertical lines.
19
2.6. Launching of solitons from massive barriers
The finite size of protein α-helices introduces reflective boundary conditions that enable launching of
Davydov solitons from either end of the α-helix [29]. Simulations with ξ = 1 of solitons with different
width σ showed that propagating solitons are launched only if the amide I energy is within several peptide
groups from one of the ends of the α-helix. As an example, a Gaussian of amide I energy with width σ = 5
produces propagating solitons when applied at a distance ∆ ≤ 4 peptide groups from the α-helix end, and
pinned solitons when ∆ > 4 (Fig. 15). To test whether massive barriers can also be used for launching
propagating solitons, we have simulated a massive 500 M barrier located at peptide groups n = 3 − 5,
and applied a Gaussian of amide I energy at a position where it generates a pinned soliton in the absence
of the barrier (Fig. 15c). Indeed, a propagating soliton was launched (Fig. 16a), albeit moving with a
substantially lower speed in comparison with the case when it is launched at the α-helix end (Fig. 15a). We
also investigated the efficiency of soliton launching for different Gaussians of amide I energy σ = {1, 3, 5, 7},
as applied to peptide groups adjacent to the massive barrier. The simulations showed that the soliton is
immediately dispersed if the amide I exciton energy is applied to a single peptide group (Fig. 17a), but
launches a propagating soliton for σ ≥ 3 (Figs. 17b, c, d). Thus, protein clamps could be able to launch
propagating Davydov solitons when energy is supplied by biochemical processes that trigger the clamp
removal.
3. Conclusions
Following works such as [56], the possibility of quantum mechanical tunneling effects in biological systems
has for about 30 years been a significant focus of attention (surveyed in [57]). Evidence for such effects has
arisen through detection of such phenomena as the kinetic isotope effect in enzymatic reactions [58], and
vibrationally assisted tunneling for classes of proteins [59, 60] (see also [61] which underscores the role of
amide I vibrational energy). In close connection with this scope of research, we have shown in this present
paper that the action of external protein clamps could be physically modeled by a local increment of the
effective mass of peptide groups inside a clamped protein α-helix, and that such clamping action introduces
a massive barrier that could either reflect Davydov solitons, or allow them to tunnel through. We have
also identified several factors that affect the transmission of energy by Davydov solitons in the presence of
such massive barriers, namely, the soliton speed, the tunneling probability, and the tunneling time. In line
with a previous quantum model of SNARE protein zipping in active zones of neuronal synapses [61], the
simulations, as presented, demonstrate that Davydov solitons are indeed capable of bouncing off a massive
barrier multiple times before successfully tunneling into the other side of the barrier. These results may
have implications for an improved understanding of protein-protein interactions, synaptic function, and the
transfer of information between neurons in neural networks.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for providing useful suggestions for improving the presentation of this work.
Appendix A. Supplementary videos
Video 1. Soliton dynamics in the absence of a massive barrier for the case shown in Fig. 3a with isotropic
exciton-lattice coupling ξ = 1 launched by a Gaussian of amide I energy σ = 5 applied at the N-end of
an α-helix spine composed of 40 peptide groups (extending along the x-axis) during a period of 400 ps.
Quantum probabilities |an |2 are plotted in blue along the z-axis. Phonon lattice displacement differences
bn − bn−1 (measured in picometers) are plotted in red along the y-axis.
20
Δ=2
Δ=4
b
400
400
300
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
a
200
200
0.5
100
100
0.4
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
20
30
40
0.3
Peptide group (n)
Δ=6
c
10
400
0.2
Δ=8
d
400
0.1
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
300
200
100
0
200
100
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
10
20
30
40
Peptide group (n)
Figure 15: Launching of soliton by a Gaussian of amide I energy σ = 5 applied at a distance ∆ = {2, 4, 6, 8} peptide groups
away from the N-end of an α-helix spine composed of 40 peptide groups for the isotropic exciton-lattice coupling ξ = 1 during
a period of 400 ps.
21
Δ=2
Δ=4
b
400
400
300
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
a
200
200
0.5
100
100
0.4
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
20
30
40
0.3
Peptide group (n)
Δ=6
c
10
400
0.2
Δ=8
d
400
0.1
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
300
200
100
0
200
100
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
10
20
30
40
Peptide group (n)
Figure 16: Launching of soliton by a Gaussian of amide I energy σ = 5 applied at a distance ∆ = {2, 4, 6, 8} peptide groups
away from a massive barrier extending over three peptide groups n = 3 − 5, each of which with effective mass of 500M , of an
α-helix spine composed of 40 peptide groups for the isotropic exciton-lattice coupling ξ = 1 during a period of 400 ps. The
barrier location is indicated with thin vertical lines.
22
σ=1
σ=3
b
400
400
300
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
a
200
200
0.5
100
100
0.4
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
20
30
40
0.3
Peptide group (n)
σ=5
c
10
400
0.2
σ=7
d
400
0.1
300
Time (ps)
Time (ps)
300
200
100
0
200
100
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
Peptide group (n)
10
20
30
40
Peptide group (n)
Figure 17: Launching of solitons by different Gaussians of amide I energy σ = {1, 3, 5, 7} applied at peptide groups adjacent to
a massive barrier extending over three peptide groups n = 3 − 5, each of which with effective mass of 500M , of an α-helix spine
composed of 40 peptide groups for the isotropic exciton-lattice coupling ξ = 1 during a period of 400 ps. The barrier location
is indicated with thin vertical lines.
23
Video 2. Soliton reflection from and tunneling through a massive barrier extending over three peptide groups
n = 26 − 28, each of which with effective mass of 300M , for the case shown in Fig. 3b with isotropic excitonlattice coupling ξ = 1 launched by a Gaussian of amide I energy σ = 5 applied at the N-end of an α-helix
spine composed of 40 peptide groups (extending along the x-axis) during a period of 400 ps. Quantum
probabilities |an |2 are plotted in blue along the z-axis. Phonon lattice displacement differences bn − bn−1
(measured in picometers) are plotted in red along the y-axis. The place of the massive barrier is indicated
with two parallel lines.
Video 3. Soliton reflection from and tunneling through a massive barrier extending over three peptide groups
n = 26 − 28, each of which with effective mass of 600M , for the case shown in Fig. 3c with isotropic excitonlattice coupling ξ = 1 launched by a Gaussian of amide I energy σ = 5 applied at the N-end of an α-helix
spine composed of 40 peptide groups (extending along the x-axis) during a period of 400 ps. Quantum
probabilities |an |2 are plotted in blue along the z-axis. Phonon lattice displacement differences bn − bn−1
(measured in picometers) are plotted in red along the y-axis. The place of the massive barrier is indicated
with two parallel lines.
Video 4. Soliton reflection from a massive barrier extending over three peptide groups n = 26 − 28, each
of which with effective mass of 900M , for the case shown in Fig. 3d with isotropic exciton-lattice coupling
ξ = 1 launched by a Gaussian of amide I energy σ = 5 applied at the N-end of an α-helix spine composed of
40 peptide groups (extending along the x-axis) during a period of 400 ps. Quantum probabilities |an |2 are
plotted in blue along the z-axis. Phonon lattice displacement differences bn − bn−1 (measured in picometers)
are plotted in red along the y-axis. The place of the massive barrier is indicated with two parallel lines.
References
[1] M. Strong, Protein nanomachines, PLoS Biology 2 (3) (2004) e73. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020073.
[2] H. Hess, G. D. Bachand, Biomolecular motors, Materials Today 8 (12, Supplement 1) (2005) 22–29. doi:10.1016/S13697021(05)71286-4.
[3] N. Hirokawa, S. Niwa, Y. Tanaka, Molecular motors in neurons: transport mechanisms and roles in brain function,
development, and disease, Neuron 68 (4) (2010) 610–638. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.09.039.
[4] T. Ha, Probing nature’s nanomachines one molecule at a time, Biophysical Journal 110 (5) (2016) 1004–1007. doi:
10.1016/j.bpj.2016.02.009.
[5] S. Jones, J. M. Thornton, Principles of protein-protein interactions, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America 93 (1) (1996) 13–20. doi:10.1073/pnas.93.1.13.
[6] C. Ottman, Protein-protein interactions: an overview, in: A. Dömling (Ed.), Protein-Protein Interactions in Drug
Discovery, Methods and Principles in Medicinal Chemistry, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2013, pp. 1–19. doi:
10.1002/9783527648207.ch1.
[7] O. Keskin, N. Tuncbag, A. Gursoy, Predicting protein-protein interactions from the molecular to the proteome level,
Chemical Reviews 116 (8) (2016) 4884–4909. doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00683.
[8] C. G. Giraudo, W. S. Eng, T. J. Melia, J. E. Rothman, A clamping mechanism involved in SNARE-dependent exocytosis,
Science 313 (5787) (2006) 676–680. doi:10.1126/science.1129450.
[9] D. D. Georgiev, J. F. Glazebrook, Subneuronal processing of information by solitary waves and stochastic processes, in:
S. E. Lyshevski (Ed.), Nano and Molecular Electronics Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2007, Ch. 17, pp. 1–41.
[10] D. D. Georgiev, J. F. Glazebrook, Quasiparticle tunneling in neurotransmitter release, in: W. A. Goddard III, D. Brenner,
S. E. Lyshevski, G. J. Iafrate (Eds.), Handbook of Nanoscience, Engineering, and Technology, 3rd Edition, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, 2012, Ch. 30, pp. 983–1016.
[11] D. D. Georgiev, Quantum Information and Consciousness: A Gentle Introduction, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2017. doi:
10.1201/9780203732519.
[12] C. Li, M. Enomoto, A. M. Rossi, M.-D. Seo, T. Rahman, P. B. Stathopulos, C. W. Taylor, M. Ikura, J. B. Ames,
CaBP1, a neuronal Ca2+ sensor protein, inhibits inositol trisphosphate receptors by clamping intersubunit interactions,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110 (21) (2013) 8507–8512. doi:
10.1073/pnas.1220847110.
[13] B. A. Simms, G. W. Zamponi, Neuronal voltage-gated calcium channels: structure, function, and dysfunction, Neuron
82 (1) (2014) 24–45. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.03.016.
[14] S. Hashemifar, B. Neyshabur, A. A. Khan, J. Xu, Predicting protein-protein interactions through sequence-based deep
learning, Bioinformatics 34 (17) (2018) i802–i810. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bty573.
[15] L. G. Douma, K. K. Yu, J. K. England, M. Levitus, L. B. Bloom, Mechanism of opening a sliding clamp, Nucleic Acids
Research 45 (17) (2017) 10178–10189. doi:10.1093/nar/gkx665.
24
[16] J. Iyer, C. J. Wahlmark, G. A. Kuser-Ahnert, F. Kawasaki, Molecular mechanisms of complexin fusion clamp function
in synaptic exocytosis revealed in a new Drosophila mutant, Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience 56 (2013) 244–254.
doi:10.1016/j.mcn.2013.06.002.
[17] A. S. Davydov, N. I. Kislukha, Solitons in one-dimensional molecular chains, Physica Status Solidi (b) 75 (2) (1976)
735–742. doi:10.1002/pssb.2220750238.
[18] A. S. Davydov, Solitons in molecular systems, Physica Scripta 20 (3-4) (1979) 387–394. doi:10.1088/0031-8949/20/34/013.
[19] A. S. Davydov, Solitons in quasi-one-dimensional molecular structures, Soviet Physics Uspekhi 25 (12) (1982) 898–918.
doi:10.1070/pu1982v025n12abeh005012.
[20] A. S. Davydov, Quantum theory of the motion of a quasi-particle in a molecular chain with thermal vibrations taken into
account, Physica Status Solidi (b) 138 (2) (1986) 559–576. doi:10.1002/pssb.2221380221.
[21] A. S. Davydov, V. N. Ermakov, Soliton generation at the boundary of a molecular chain, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena
32 (2) (1988) 318–323. doi:10.1016/0167-2789(88)90059-0.
[22] A. C. Scott, Launching a Davydov soliton: I. Soliton analysis, Physica Scripta 29 (3) (1984) 279–283. doi:10.1088/00318949/29/3/016.
[23] A. C. Scott, Davydov solitons in polypeptides, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A,
Mathematical and Physical Sciences 315 (1533) (1985) 423–436. doi:10.1098/rsta.1985.0049.
[24] A. C. Scott, Davydov’s soliton, Physics Reports 217 (1) (1992) 1–67. doi:10.1016/0370-1573(92)90093-F.
[25] L. S. Brizhik, A. Eremko, B. Piette, W. Zakrzewski, Solitons in α-helical proteins, Physical Review E 70 (3) (2004) 031914.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.70.031914.
[26] L. Brizhik, A. Eremko, B. Piette, W. Zakrzewski, Charge and energy transfer by solitons in low-dimensional nanosystems
with helical structure, Chemical Physics 324 (1) (2006) 259–266. doi:10.1016/j.chemphys.2006.01.033.
[27] L. Brizhik, A. Eremko, B. Piette, W. Zakrzewski, Ratchet effect of Davydov’s solitons in nonlinear low-dimensional
nanosystems, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 110 (1) (2010) 25–37. doi:10.1002/qua.22083.
[28] J. Luo, B. Piette, A generalised Davydov-Scott model for polarons in linear peptide chains, European Physical Journal B
90 (8) (2017) 155. doi:10.1140/epjb/e2017-80209-2.
[29] D. D. Georgiev, J. F. Glazebrook, On the quantum dynamics of Davydov solitons in protein α-helices, Physica A: Statistical
Mechanics and its Applications 517 (2019) 257–269. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2018.11.026.
[30] J. Sun, B. Luo, Y. Zhao, Dynamics of a one-dimensional Holstein polaron with the Davydov ansätze, Physical Review B
82 (1) (2010) 014305. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.82.014305.
[31] B. Luo, J. Ye, Y. Zhao, Variational study of polaron dynamics with the Davydov ansätze, Physica Status Solidi (c) 8 (1)
(2011) 70–73. doi:10.1002/pssc.201000721.
[32] N. Zhou, Z. Huang, J. Zhu, V. Chernyak, Y. Zhao, Polaron dynamics with a multitude of Davydov d2 trial states, Journal
of Chemical Physics 143 (1) (2015) 014113. doi:10.1063/1.4923009.
[33] W. C. Kerr, P. S. Lomdahl, Quantum-mechanical derivation of the equations of motion for Davydov solitons, Physical
Review B 35 (7) (1987) 3629–3632. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.35.3629.
[34] W. C. Kerr, P. S. Lomdahl, Quantum-mechanical derivation of the Davydov equations for multi-quanta states, in: P. L.
Christiansen, A. C. Scott (Eds.), Davydov’s Soliton Revisited: Self-Trapping of Vibrational Energy in Protein, Springer,
New York, 1990, pp. 23–30. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-9948-4_2.
[35] K. Itoh, T. Shimanouchi, Vibrational spectra of crystalline formamide, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy 42 (1) (1972)
86–99. doi:10.1016/0022-2852(72)90146-4.
[36] L. MacNeil, A. C. Scott, Launching a Davydov soliton: II. Numerical studies, Physica Scripta 29 (3) (1984) 284–287.
doi:10.1088/0031-8949/29/3/017.
[37] L. Cruzeiro, J. Halding, P. L. Christiansen, O. Skovgaard, A. C. Scott, Temperature effects on the Davydov soliton,
Physical Review A 37 (3) (1988) 880–887. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.37.880.
[38] L. Petzold, Automatic selection of methods for solving stiff and nonstiff systems of ordinary differential equations, SIAM
Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing 4 (1) (1983) 136–148. doi:10.1137/0904010.
[39] A. C. Hindmarsh, ODEPACK, a systematized collection of ODE solvers, in: R. S. Stepleman, M. Carver, R. Peskin, W. F.
Ames, R. Vichnevetsky (Eds.), Scientific Computing, IMACS Transactions on Scientific Computation, North-Holland,
Amsterdam, 1983, pp. 55–64.
[40] A. C. Hindmarsh, L. R. Petzold, Algorithms and software for ordinary differential equations and differential-algebraic
equations, Part II: Higher-order methods and software packages, Computers in Physics 9 (2) (1995) 148–155. doi:
10.1063/1.168540.
[41] M. Trott, The Mathematica GuideBook for Numerics, Springer, New York, 2006. doi:10.1007/0-387-28814-7.
[42] H. Motschmann, W. Förner, J. Ladik, Influence of heat bath and disorder in the sequence of amino acid masses on Davydov
solitons, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 1 (31) (1989) 5083–5093. doi:10.1088/0953-8984/1/31/007.
[43] W. Förner, J. Ladik, Influence of heat bath and disorder on Davydov solitons, in: P. L. Christiansen, A. C. Scott (Eds.),
Davydov’s Soliton Revisited: Self-Trapping of Vibrational Energy in Protein, Springer, New York, 1990, pp. 267–283.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-9948-4_20.
[44] W. Förner, Quantum and disorder effects in Davydov soliton theory, Physical Review A 44 (4) (1991) 2694–2708. doi:
10.1103/PhysRevA.44.2694.
[45] C. N. Pace, J. M. Scholtz, A helix propensity scale based on experimental studies of peptides and proteins, Biophysical
Journal 75 (1) (1998) 422–427. doi:10.1016/S0006-3495(98)77529-0.
[46] V. F. Zakharov, A. B. Shabat, Exact theory of two-dimensional self-focusing and one-dimensional self-modulation of wave
in nonlinear media, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 34 (1) (1972) 62–69.
25
[47] Y. S. Kivshar, B. A. Malomed, Dynamics of solitons in nearly integrable systems, Reviews of Modern Physics 61 (4) (1989)
763–915. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.61.763.
[48] A. S. Davydov, V. N. Ermakov, Linear and nonlinear resonance electron tunneling through a system of potential barriers,
Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 28 (1) (1987) 168–180. doi:10.1016/0167-2789(87)90127-8.
[49] V. N. Ermakov, E. A. Ponezha, Resonance tunneling with dissipation taken into account, Physica Status Solidi (b) 145 (2)
(1988) 545–554. doi:10.1002/pssb.2221450220.
[50] K. Forinash, M. Peyrard, B. Malomed, Interaction of discrete breathers with impurity modes, Physical Review E 49 (4)
(1994) 3400–3411. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.49.3400.
[51] E. A. Ostrovskaya, Y. S. Kivshar, D. V. Skryabin, W. J. Firth, Stability of multihump optical solitons, Physical Review
Letters 83 (2) (1999) 296–299. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.296.
[52] L. S. Brizhik, A. S. Davydov, Soliton excitations in one-dimensional molecular systems, Physica Status Solidi (b) 115 (2)
(1983) 615–630. doi:10.1002/pssb.2221150233.
[53] L. S. Brizhik, Y. B. Gaididei, A. A. Vakhnenko, V. A. Vakhnenko, Soliton generation in semi-infinite molecular chains,
Physica Status Solidi (b) 146 (2) (1988) 605–612. doi:10.1002/pssb.2221460221.
[54] L. S. Brizhik, Soliton generation in molecular chains, Physical Review B 48 (5) (1993) 3142–3144. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.
48.3142.
[55] V. A. Kuprievich, On the calculations of the exciton-phonon coupling parameters in the theory of Davydov solitons, in:
P. L. Christiansen, A. C. Scott (Eds.), Davydov’s Soliton Revisited: Self-Trapping of Vibrational Energy in Protein,
Springer, New York, 1990, pp. 199–207. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-9948-4_15.
[56] D. De Vault, Quantum-Mechanical Tunneling in Biological Systems, Vol. 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,
1984.
[57] J. C. Brookes, Quantum effects in biology: golden rule in enzymes, olfaction, photosynthesis and magnetodetection,
Proceedings of the Royal Society A 473 (2017) 20160822. doi:10.1098/rspa.2016.0822.
[58] J. P. Klinman, A. Kohen, Hydrogen tunneling links protein dynamics to enzyme catalysis, Annual Review of Biochemistry
82 (1) (2013) 471–496. doi:10.1146/annurev-biochem-051710-133623.
[59] J. Basran, S. Patel, M. J. Sutcliffe, N. S. Scrutton, Importance of barrier shape in enzyme-catalyzed reactions: vibrationally
assisted hydrogen tunneling in tryptophan tryptophylquinone-dependent amine dehydrogenases, Journal of Biological
Chemistry 276 (9) (2001) 6234–6242. doi:10.1074/jbc.M008141200.
[60] M. J. Sutcliffe, N. S. Scrutton, Enzyme catalysis: over-the-barrier or through-the-barrier?, Trends in Biochemical Sciences
25 (9) (2000) 405–408. doi:10.1016/S0968-0004(00)01642-X.
[61] D. D. Georgiev, J. F. Glazebrook, The quantum physics of synaptic communication via the SNARE protein complex,
Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 135 (2018) 16–29. doi:10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2018.01.006.
26