We note that, due to thermal fluctuations, the FGFR inhibitor curvature profile of the rings are constantly changing; calculating the bending strain energy for a particular case may result in a more accurate description for a single instance. Thus, we consider limiting cases only. The maximal case can be determined considering the upper bound of α = 1, wherein the entire loop may unfurl, and the minimum β. In the three-loop configuration, κ = 6π/L, while completely unfolded, κ = 2π/L, such Proteasome inhibitor that, for this particular structure, the lower bound of β is 1/3. With these two assumptions, (4b) Moreover, noting again that κ = 6π/L, (4c) Note that here D represents the effective

bending stiffness. We also presume that carbyne behaves as a flexible molecular chain with a temperature-dependent flexibility and finite rigidity at zero temperature. A common property of molecular chains in polymer science is the persistence length, P, defined as the characteristic length over which direction can be correlated [71], related to both temperature (T) and bending rigidity (D). For flexible molecules, the persistence length can be approximated

as P = D/k B T, where k B is the Boltzmann constant [72]. In a similar manner, persistence length is formulated here as a proxy for rigidity, assuming some finite persistence independent of temperature. As a consequence, the bending ITF2357 solubility dmso stiffness, D, can be directly represented as a function of temperature: (5) where P 0 is considered the temperature-independent persistence length. In effect, the apparent bending rigidity increases with temperature,

also supported by previous theoretical results; a recent ab initio (temperature-free) investigation reports the bending stiffness to be in the order of 5.3(10-2) nN-nm2[23], while a finite temperature (300 K) molecular dynamics study reports a stiffness of approximately 13 to 20(10-2) nN-nm2[21]. Here, D 0 is the rigidity at zero temperature (as carbyne is not ideally flexible) much and thus is approximated as 5.3(10-2) nN-nm2. At the critical condition for unfolding, the gained strain energy (Equation 4) must be sufficient to overcome a local energy barrier, Ω, where Ω is a combination of adhesion energy and required strain energy to unfold (e.g., local increase in curvature as depicted in Figure 7 and torsional and adhesion contributions) such that ΔU b = Ω. Substituting (4) into (3c) and rearranging to solve for temperature results in (6) Using Equation 6 with the simulation results, the approximate unfolding temperature, T unfolding, can be predicted. The key assumption is that the unfolding process does not imply a constant decrease in energy (i.e., release of bending strain energy), and thus some energetic input, Ω, is required to allow deviation from the high-energy folded or looped state, which can be considered a temperature-dependent state of quasi-equilibrium.