Jin Suk Myung1, Felix Roosen-Runge1, Roland G Winkler2, Gerhard Gompper2, Peter Schurtenberger1, Anna Stradner1. 1. Division of Physical Chemistry, Department of Chemistry , Lund University , SE-221 00 Lund , Sweden. 2. Theoretical Soft Matter and Biophysics, Institute of Complex Systems and Institute for Advanced Simulation , Forschungszentrum Jülich , D-52425 Jülich , Germany.
Abstract
The effect of a nonspherical particle shape on the dynamics in crowded solutions presents a significant challenge for a comprehensive understanding of interaction and structural relaxation in biological and soft matter. We report that small deviations from a spherical shape induce a nonmonotonic contribution to the crowding effect on the short-time cage diffusion compared with spherical systems, using molecular dynamics simulations with mesoscale hydrodynamics of a multiparticle collision dynamics fluid in semidilute systems with volume fractions smaller than 0.35. We show that the nonmonotonic effect due to anisotropy is caused by the combination of a reduced relative mobility over the entire concentration range and a looser and less homogeneous cage packing of nonspherical particles. Our finding stresses that nonsphericity induces new complexity, which cannot be accounted for in effective sphere models, and is of great interest in applications such as formulations as well as for the fundamental understanding of soft matter in general and crowding effects in living cells in particular.
The effect of a nonspherical particle shape on the dynamics in crowded solutions presents a significant challenge for a comprehensive understanding of interaction and structural relaxation in biological and soft matter. We report that small deviations from a spherical shape induce a nonmonotonic contribution to the crowding effect on the short-time cage diffusion compared with spherical systems, using molecular dynamics simulations with mesoscale hydrodynamics of a multiparticle collision dynamics fluid in semidilute systems with volume fractions smaller than 0.35. We show that the nonmonotonic effect due to anisotropy is caused by the combination of a reduced relative mobility over the entire concentration range and a looser and less homogeneous cage packing of nonspherical particles. Our finding stresses that nonsphericity induces new complexity, which cannot be accounted for in effective sphere models, and is of great interest in applications such as formulations as well as for the fundamental understanding of soft matter in general and crowding effects in living cells in particular.
Diffusion
of proteins in cells is an essential aspect, as it strongly
influences the cellular machinery through numerous processes such
as signal transmission or reactions between proteins.[1−3] In a dense and crowded environment such as the interior of a living
cell, individual proteins strongly feel the presence of surrounding
proteins through direct and hydrodynamic interactions.[4−7] These interactions cause a severe slowing down of diffusional transport
in crowded solutions,[1,8] with a strong dependence on the
nature of the crowder and tracer.[9−13] Concentrated protein solutions present promising
systems for the investigation of generic crowding effects, since systematic
experimental studies have been successfully linked to colloid-inspired
descriptions,[14−19] as for example for the critical slowing down and dynamical arrest
in crystallin solutions mimicking the eye lens fluid.[20−23] On the basis of this overall success of colloidal concepts, previous
studies[1,14−18,21,23] argued that a weak shape anisotropy as found for many globular proteins
can be successfully modeled using effective spherical particles,[24] thereby neglecting the specific shape of the
particle.Here, using mesoscale hydrodynamic simulations, we
critically examine
this approach in the appropriate short-time limit, in which the single-particle
hydrodynamic mobility governs the motions without being obstructed
by other particles. We stress that an accurate characterization of
the short-time limit is essential for a quantitative understanding
of dynamic processes at longer times, as short-time processes always
enter the description, e.g., owing to mobility as well as collision
or escape times. We show that slightly nonspherical particles experience
a nonmonotonic contribution to the slowing down of the short-time
cage diffusion, i.e., the short-time collective diffusion on a length
scale comparable to the particle size, which cannot be understood
based on colloidal models of effective spheres, and is not caused
by interparticle attraction. We remark that this effect is not caused
by jamming close to dynamical arrest, but is an intrinsic property
of colloidal and protein diffusion in semidilute systems with volume
fractions smaller than 0.35. We rationalize the finding based on the
mobility, i.e., the short-time self-diffusion, and structural properties
of the system. We discuss the broad implications for the understanding
of biological and soft matter given the prevalence of particles with
anisotropic interactions and a nonspherical shape.
Methods
Mesoscale Hybrid
Simulation
We investigate the effect
of shape anisotropy on the dynamical behavior of colloids by a mesoscale
hybrid simulation approach combining the multiparticle collision dynamics
(MPC) method for the fluid with molecular dynamics simulations (MD)
for ellipsoids.[25−28] Importantly, this simulation approach allows for a reliable account
of hydrodynamic interactions of nonspherical particles, and is thus
ideally suited to address crowding effects in such systems. We recently
used this approach to show that short-time dynamics of weakly attractive
colloids is strongly affected by anisotropic interactions,[23] and the clustering dynamics of proteins has
been investigated.[29] Furthermore, the MPC
method has successfully been used in complex systems such as polymers,[25,26] colloids,[28,30] vesicles, and blood cells,[31,32] as well as active systems.[33]
Model Ellipsoid
An ellipsoid is represented by a set
of Nm beads of mass M distributed over the ellipsoid surface and one in the center (cf. Figure inset). This structure
allows for a computationally efficient coupling of the solvent and
ellipsoid.[28] Neighboring beads and the
center of the ellipsoid are connected by a harmonic bond potentialto maintain a nearly rigid
ellipsoid. Here, r is the center-to-center distance
of the two beads, l is the preferred bond length,
and ks is the spring constant. The interactions
between ellipsoids
are assumed to be short ranged, and are represented by a Yukawa attraction
with hard core-like repulsion for all interellipsoid bead pairswith the bead diameter σ. ε and
εr are the interaction strengths of interellipsoid
attraction and repulsion, respectively. b is the
parameter characterizing the interaction range.
Figure 1
(A) Intermediate scattering
function (ISF) for different volume
fractions of attractive ellipsoids. The ISF of 0.02τ ≤ t ≤ 0.2τ is used for the fit to obtain the
short-time collective diffusion coefficient Ds(q), where τ = Rh2/D0 is the characteristic
time of colloids. (B) Mean-square-displacement (MSD) for different
volume fractions of attractive ellipsoids. The MSD of 0.02τ
≤ t ≤ 0.6τ is used for the fit
to obtain the short-time self-diffusion coefficient Dss. Inset:
bead configuration for the model ellipsoid.
(A) Intermediate scattering
function (ISF) for different volume
fractions of attractive ellipsoids. The ISF of 0.02τ ≤ t ≤ 0.2τ is used for the fit to obtain the
short-time collective diffusion coefficient Ds(q), where τ = Rh2/D0 is the characteristic
time of colloids. (B) Mean-square-displacement (MSD) for different
volume fractions of attractive ellipsoids. The MSD of 0.02τ
≤ t ≤ 0.6τ is used for the fit
to obtain the short-time self-diffusion coefficient Dss. Inset:
bead configuration for the model ellipsoid.
Multiparticle Collision Dynamics Fluid
The MPC approach
is a particle-based simulation technique, which incorporates thermal
fluctuations and hydrodynamic correlations,[25−27] and, thus,
provides a solution for fluctuating hydrodynamic equations (Landau–Lifshitz
Navier–Stokes equations).[27,34] In addition,
it is easily coupled with other simulation techniques, such as molecular
dynamics simulations for embedded particles.[25,26,35,36] In MPC, the
fluid is represented by point particles, Ns in the current study, of mass m, which interact
with each other by a stochastic process.[25−27] The algorithm
consists of two steps: streaming and collision. In the streaming step,
the particles move ballistically and their positions are updated according
towhere r and v are the position
and velocity of particle i, and h is the time between collisions. In the collision step, a coarse-grained
interaction between the fluid particles is imposed by a stochastic
process. Thereby, particles are sorted into cells of a cubic lattice,
defining the collision environment, with lattice constant a. Various collision schemes have been introduced.[25,26,30,37] Here, we apply the stochastic rotation version of MPC,[38] where for all particles in a cell, their relative
velocity with respect to the center-of-mass velocity vcm of the cell is rotated by the fixed angle α.
This yields the new velocitieswith the rotation matrix R(α)
around a randomly oriented axis chosen independently for every collision
cell and collision step. These steps conserve the linear momentum
on the collision cell level and thereby yield proper hydrodynamic
correlations.[34] The MPC procedure can be
considered as a coarse-grained description of pairwise elastic collisions
of hard-sphere fluid particles. In the center-of-mass reference frame,
such a two-particle collision leads to particle scattering by a certain
angle defined by their energy and momenta. The MPC rotation of relative
velocities can be considered as the net effect of various collisions
averaged over time and space.The colloid–solvent coupling
is implemented by including the beads in the collision step. Hence,
the particle center-of-mass velocity vcm(t) of a cell containing beads iswhere Nsc and Nmc are the number
of solvent particles and beads in the cell, respectively.[25] In the MPC collision step, the velocity of colloid
beads is updated via eq , in the same way as for the solvent particles, leading to a local
exchange of momentum between the fluid particles and the colloid beads,
while conserving the overall momentum in the collision cell. During
the MPC streaming step, the beads are propagated using standard molecular
dynamics (with the velocity Verlet algorithm), taking into account
only the direct interactions with neighboring beads of the same colloid
and any nearby beads of other colloids, to ensure conformational colloid
integrity and accurate colloid–colloid interactions.The applied MPC approach results in a translational and rotational
diffusive motion of a colloid, with, in dilute solution, diffusion
coefficients agreeing quantitatively with those predicted by the solution
of Stokes equation for a colloid of nonslip boundary conditions.[28] Moreover, colloid center-of-mass and rotational
velocity autocorrelation functions exhibit a long-time tail consistent
with a solution of the linear fluctuating hydrodynamics equations
(Landau–Lifshitz Navier–Stokes).[28,34]To control and maintain a constant temperature, we apply a
local
Maxwellian thermostat by scaling velocities.[39] For this purpose, the kinetic energy is taken from the Γ distribution,
which describes the distribution of kinetic energy, accounting for
the number of degrees of freedom of the particles in a collision cell.
A scaling factor is determined as the ratio between the actual kinetic
energy of the particles in the respective cell and the value from
the distribution function. Then, the relative velocities v – vcm of all of the particles in a cell are multiplied by the scaling
factor. This algorithm ensures conservation of momentum in a collision
cell and a Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution of the particle velocities.
Simulation Setup and Parameters
An ellipsoid is comprised
of Nm = 101 beads, and the semiprincipal
axes are ra = 5σ, rb = 2.95σ, and rc =
2.5σ. The shape of the ellipsoid is chosen to mimic the model
protein γB-crystallin, for which short-time diffusion
and phase behavior are experimentally well-characterized.[22,23] The direct interactions are characterized by ks = 2000kBT/σ2, b = 15, and εr = kBT, where kB is the Boltzmann constant and T the
absolute temperature. Note that the deformation of ellipsoids during
simulations is less than 0.1% (cf. Figure S1). The attraction strength ε = 2.9kBT for attractive ellipsoids is chosen such that
the system is in the one-phase region above the coexistence curve
for metastable liquid–liquid phase separation,[22,23][22,23] which is typically observed for colloids and proteins
with short-range attraction.[40,41] We employed a cubic
simulation box of side length Ls = 100a, corresponding to a total number of ellipsoids ranging
from N = 245 (ϕ = 0.05) to 1485 (ϕ =
0.3). The volume fraction is defined as ϕ = (4/3)π(ra + rh)(rb + rh)(rc + rh)N/Ls3, where rh = 0.3σ is the
hydrodynamic radius of the surface bead.[28] The parameters for the MPC fluid are a = σ, M = 10m, α = 130°, , and the mean number
of fluid particles
in a collision cell ⟨Nsc⟩ = 10. This choice of
MPC fluid parameters leads to a sufficiently large Schmidt number
(Sc ≈ 20), such that the momentum
diffusion exceeds mass diffusion and transport properties are dominated
by the hydrodynamics.[36] By setting M = ⟨Nsc⟩m = 10m, we ensure an adequate hydrodynamic coupling between a
colloidal bead and the MPC particles in a collision cell, because
of their comparable momenta. Newton’s equations of motion for
the beads were solved by the velocity Verlet algorithm with time step hp = h/10.[42]The hydrodynamic radius of the ellipsoid is Rh = 3.9σ calculated from the free diffusion
coefficient D0 = kBT/(6πηRh) with the solvent viscosity η, where D0 was obtained from the extrapolation of the short-time
self-diffusion coefficient Dss(ϕ) toward ϕ = 0.
Here, the short-time self-diffusion coefficient Dss was calculated
from the mean-square-displacement (MSD) ⟨Δr2⟩ = 6Dsst of the colloids at
short times (t < 0.6τ), where τ = Rh2/D0 is the characteristic time of colloids.As a remark on the
MPC method, for the first few MPC steps, the
hydrodynamics are not fully developed and almost the same MSD is found
for any concentration. As apparent in Figures B and S2B, the
curves for the various concentrations approach each other at short
times. After a sufficient number of steps, hydrodynamic interactions
are established and cause a diffusive regime with a MSD linear in
time. The crossover between the initial nonhydrodynamic regime and
the diffusive regime shifts to shorter times with increasing concentration,[28] resulting in the diffusive regime extending
down to 0.001τ for ϕ = 0.3.The dynamic properties
are investigated in the short-time regime,
i.e., on a time scale shorter than the characteristic time of the
colloids. Correspondingly, we denote the observed self- and collective
diffusion as short-time diffusion. We remark that our notion might
differ from the formal definition of short-time diffusion based on
the instantaneous mobility tensor, as the latter is not necessarily
observable from trajectories in dense, attractive, and anisotropic
systems. The basic reason is that a clear separation of the Brownian
time scale (on which particles become diffusive) and interaction time
scale (on which interaction potentials become effective) may not be
ensured for all conditions.
Results and Discussion
In a crowded solution such as the cytoplasm, numerous factors affect
the phase behavior and diffusion of proteins. An increasing volume
fraction as the control parameter directly linked to crowding enhances
hydrodynamic and direct interactions, resulting in a slowing down
of diffusion and the eventual arrest of macroscopic dynamics at the
glass line.[1,16,17,21,45] A second commonly
considered factor is attractive interactions that cause, e.g., molecular
docking, cluster formation, gelation, and liquid–liquid phase
separation, which in turn affect the diffusion in complex and crucial
ways.[1,18,22,23]Interestingly, much less is known about crowding
effects on diffusion
in the presence of interaction and shape anisotropy, although these
are ubiquitous in proteins, and patchy particle models have been shown
to successfully reproduce the phase behavior of such protein solutions
quantitatively.[46−49] Very recent studies outlined coupled rotational–translational
protein diffusion due to anisotropic attraction,[45] and a drastic slowing down of short-time diffusion due
to attractive patches on spheres.[23] These
findings on anisotropic attraction emphasize that the statistical–mechanistic
understanding of crowding is hampered by the lack of information on
the effects of anisotropy. Moreover, systematic studies on the influence
of a nonspherical shape are missing so far, because of the challenge
of including hydrodynamic interactions for nonspherical particles.To address the mechanism of how a nonspherical shape affects crowding,
we focus on the initial step of structural relaxation on the nearest-neighbor
distance, i.e., the short-time cage diffusion.[23,43] Short-time cage diffusion as a collective effect characterizes the
dynamical relaxation of structural correlations between neighbor particles
(cf. Figure inset),
and is thus qualitatively different from self-diffusion rattling in
and out of a cage (cf. Figure inset). Short-time cage diffusion is interesting not only
from a colloidal point of view, where it has been studied in detail,[43] but also in physiology because of its crucial
role for cellular processes such as enzymatic reactions and recognition.[1−3,23]
Figure 2
(A) Normalized short-time cage diffusion Dcage′ = Ds(q*)/D0 as a function of the volume fraction ϕ. Results
for
the hard (HE) and attractive (ATT_E) ellipsoids are displayed, together
with results for the hard (HS) and attractive (ATT_S) spheres.[23] Inset: short-time cage diffusion as a collective
effect characterizes the dynamical relaxation of structural correlations
between neighboring particles. (B) The nonmonotonic contribution to
the crowding effect due to a nonspherical shape can be clearly seen
from the normalized difference between short-time cage diffusion of
ellipsoids and spheres, as obtained from theoretical predictions for
hard spheres[43] (solid black line in panel
A) and polynomial guide-to-the-eyes (dashed lines in panel A).
Figure 3
(A) Normalized short-time self-diffusion coefficient, Dself′ = Dss/D0, as a function of the volume
fraction ϕ. Results for the hard (HE) and attractive (ATT_E)
ellipsoids are displayed, together with results for the hard (HS)
and attractive (ATT_S) spheres. Ellipsoids show a lower mobility than
spheres because of the larger effective hydrodynamic size. Inset:
short-time self-diffusion describes the Brownian motion within the
cage of neighboring particles. (B) The normalized difference between
self-diffusion of ellipsoids and spheres, as obtained from theoretical
predictions for hard spheres[43,44] (solid black line in
panel A) and polynomial guide-to-the-eyes (dashed lines in panel A).
(A) Normalized short-time cage diffusion Dcage′ = Ds(q*)/D0 as a function of the volume fraction ϕ. Results
for
the hard (HE) and attractive (ATT_E) ellipsoids are displayed, together
with results for the hard (HS) and attractive (ATT_S) spheres.[23] Inset: short-time cage diffusion as a collective
effect characterizes the dynamical relaxation of structural correlations
between neighboring particles. (B) The nonmonotonic contribution to
the crowding effect due to a nonspherical shape can be clearly seen
from the normalized difference between short-time cage diffusion of
ellipsoids and spheres, as obtained from theoretical predictions for
hard spheres[43] (solid black line in panel
A) and polynomial guide-to-the-eyes (dashed lines in panel A).(A) Normalized short-time self-diffusion coefficient, Dself′ = Dss/D0, as a function of the volume
fraction ϕ. Results for the hard (HE) and attractive (ATT_E)
ellipsoids are displayed, together with results for the hard (HS)
and attractive (ATT_S) spheres. Ellipsoids show a lower mobility than
spheres because of the larger effective hydrodynamic size. Inset:
short-time self-diffusion describes the Brownian motion within the
cage of neighboring particles. (B) The normalized difference between
self-diffusion of ellipsoids and spheres, as obtained from theoretical
predictions for hard spheres[43,44] (solid black line in
panel A) and polynomial guide-to-the-eyes (dashed lines in panel A).In experiment, short-time cage
diffusion can be studied using dynamic
scattering techniques, where the nearest-neighbor distance d* is defined by the position q* = 2π/d* of the principal peak in the structure factor S(q) with the scattering wavenumber q. In our simulation approach, we calculated the intermediate
scattering function S(q,t) from the positions of all particles and subsequently
obtained the short-time cage diffusion coefficient Ds(q*) from a single exponential fit of S(q*,t) ≈ S(q*,0)e– at short times (t < 0.2τ) (cf. Figures A and S2A).Normalized
by the respective free diffusion coefficients D0 observed in the limit of infinite dilution,
the short-time cage diffusion coefficients Dcage′ = Ds(q*)/D0 of hard and attractive ellipsoids are displayed in Figure A as a function of
the volume fraction ϕ, together with published results for hard
and attractive spheres[23] for a comparison. Figure A evidences two factors
affecting the short-time cage diffusion. First, already a weak nonspherical
shape, as found for many globular proteins, causes a slowing down
at intermediate volume fractions 0.05 ≤ ϕ ≤ 0.2,
whereas no significant effect of anisotropy is observed at higher
volume fractions. The nonmonotonic characteristic of the additional
crowding effect due to the nonspherical shape is clearly seen from
the difference between cage diffusion of ellipsoids and spheres (Figure B). Second, attraction
causes an overall slowing down of cage diffusion independent of the
shape. The effect of a nonspherical shape appears more pronounced
at a lower volume fraction. The difference for attractive particles
initially exhibits a decay similar to that of hard particles, but
passes for larger concentrations (ϕ ≥ 0.15) through a
minimum and even becomes positive for ϕ ≥ 0.25.To understand these two effects, it is important to recall the
fundamental factors affecting short-time cage diffusion. The collective
diffusion coefficient Ds(q) is linked to the structure factor S(q) and the hydrodynamic function H(q) via[43]First, the structure factor S(q) represents the dependence of the collective
diffusion on the volume-fraction-dependent time-averaged structural
correlations between particles (i.e., the configuration of the nearest-neighbor
cage). Second, hydrodynamic interactions modulate the collective diffusion,
expressed in the hydrodynamic function H(q). H(q) follows roughly
the functional form of S(q) in a
dampened way, and has a high-q limit H(q → ∞) = Dss/D0. Given that S(q →
∞) = 1, the collective diffusion D(q) thus approaches self-diffusion Dss at high q. We remark that the appearance of S(q) in eq expresses
the insight that the relaxation of correlated features—e.g.,
cage diffusion—is slowed down compared with individual mobilities—i.e.,
self-diffusion. Thus, both self-diffusion (i.e., mobility) and structure
(i.e., the cage configuration and formation of transient clusters)
need to be characterized for a comprehensive explanation of the slowing
down of cage diffusion.Starting with the mobility effect, Figure A shows the normalized
short-time self-diffusion
coefficient Dself′ = Dss/D0 as a function of the volume fraction ϕ, as calculated from
the mean-square-displacement ⟨Δr2⟩ = 6Dsst of the colloids at
short times (t < 0.6τ) (cf. Figures B and S2B). The short-time self-diffusion of ellipsoids is clearly
slowed down compared with that of spheres, as expected from the increased
hydrodynamic friction of ellipsoids compared with spheres of a similar
volume.[50] Importantly, the slowing down
due to a nonspherical shape also occurs for volume fractions around
0.2–0.35, where the monotonic effect is clearly seen from the
difference between self-diffusion of ellipsoids and spheres (Figure B). Thus, the nonmonotonic
effect due to a nonspherical shape on the short-time cage diffusion
is not caused by mobility alone, but is tightly linked to the structure
of the cage.Indeed, significant differences between structural
properties of
spheres and ellipsoids are evident when comparing the particle configurations.
The representative snapshots of attractive spheres and ellipsoids
at ϕ = 0.1 shown in Figure illustrate the formation of transient clusters, as
previously discussed in ref (23). The clusters are only transient and the size of the clusters
fluctuates in time. Importantly, attractive ellipsoids show a pronounced
network structure, where many ellipsoids (∼50%) form a single
large and extended cluster. Attractive spheres also exhibit clusters,
but these are more compact and comprise only about 20% of the spheres.
The average number of connected neighbors (cf. Figure S3) of the ellipsoids is also higher than that of spheres
for low and intermediate volume fractions (ϕ ≤ 0.15),
which correspond to pronounced clusters of ellipsoids, whereas the
largest cluster comprises most of the colloids for both systems for
higher volume fractions (ϕ ≳ 0.2), and presents a similar
local environment for ellipsoids and spheres. Note that only a weak
orientational ordering of ellipsoids is observed even for the attractive
ellipsoids (cf. Figure S4).
Figure 4
Configuration of (A)
attractive spheres and (B) ellipsoids for
ϕ = 0.1. The color code of the colloids corresponds to the size
of the cluster, Nc/N,
to which the colloid belongs.
Configuration of (A)
attractive spheres and (B) ellipsoids for
ϕ = 0.1. The color code of the colloids corresponds to the size
of the cluster, Nc/N,
to which the colloid belongs.To understand the reason behind the nonmonotonic contribution
to
the crowding effect due to a nonspherical shape at volume fractions
up to 0.35, we examined a short-range structural property. Figure A displays the average
coordination number Nb, which is the number
of nearest neighbors, of attractive spheres and ellipsoids as a function
of the volume fraction. We define neighboring colloids as those having
a bead–bead distance r ≤ 1.4σ,
to account for all colloids with attractive interaction. For low and
intermediate volume fractions (ϕ ≤ 0.1), both spheres
and ellipsoids show a similar average number of neighbors ⟨Nb⟩, and thus both colloids are surrounded
by a comparable number of neighbors. However, for higher volume fractions
(ϕ ≥ 0.15), ellipsoids show a lower ⟨Nb⟩, indicating less homogeneous and less compact
cage configurations. These loose packings allow for a faster cage
relaxation of ellipsoids compared with spheres at larger volume fractions.
Figure 5
(A) Average
coordination number ⟨Nb⟩
of attractive spheres (ATT_S) and ellipsoids (ATT_E)
as a function of the volume fraction ϕ. Although similar at
a low volume fraction, attractive spheres have a higher coordination
number, implying a more homogeneous and compact cage configuration.
Inset: the structure factor S(q*)
supports this notion, and the larger values at a high volume fraction
cause a stronger slowing down for spheres compared with ellipsoids,
which compensates the mobility difference. (B, C) The structure factor S(q) for different volume fractions of
(B) attractive sphere and (C) ellipsoid. rs = 3σ is the radius of the sphere,[23] and ra = 5σ, rb = 2.95σ, and rc =
2.5σ are the semiprincipal axes of the ellipsoid.
(A) Average
coordination number ⟨Nb⟩
of attractive spheres (ATT_S) and ellipsoids (ATT_E)
as a function of the volume fraction ϕ. Although similar at
a low volume fraction, attractive spheres have a higher coordination
number, implying a more homogeneous and compact cage configuration.
Inset: the structure factor S(q*)
supports this notion, and the larger values at a high volume fraction
cause a stronger slowing down for spheres compared with ellipsoids,
which compensates the mobility difference. (B, C) The structure factor S(q) for different volume fractions of
(B) attractive sphere and (C) ellipsoid. rs = 3σ is the radius of the sphere,[23] and ra = 5σ, rb = 2.95σ, and rc =
2.5σ are the semiprincipal axes of the ellipsoid.The essential structural influence on short-time
cage diffusion Ds(q*)
as expressed by eq is
encoded in the structure
factor peak S(q*), which has been
calculated from the simulations as a second measure independent of
a cluster analysis. S(q*) is clearly
lower for ellipsoids compared with spheres, in particular at a larger
ϕ (cf. Figure inset), where the corresponding structure factor S(q) is shown in Figure B,C. This difference in cage configurations
at large volume fractions combined with eq causes a weaker slowing down for the Ds(q*) of ellipsoids compared
with spheres (cf. Figure ). Thus, comparing ellipsoids with spheres, the effects of
structural nearest-neighbor correlation and mobility effectively compensate
each other for cage diffusion at volume fractions around 0.3–0.35.Interestingly, the compensation is observed for both attractive
and hard colloids, suggesting a steric origin, and not an origin from
special cage configurations induced by anisotropic attraction. We
stress that attraction should, however, not be seen as an irrelevant
aspect for the nonmonotonic additional contribution to crowding, since
attraction actually enhances the effect, in particular at a lower
ϕ as shown in Figure B. This behavior supports the interpretation in terms of a
steric origin, since attraction simply induces a denser neighborhood
already at a lower ϕ because of cluster formation.We
remark that the reported nonmonotonic effect on short-time cage
diffusion due to the shape at volume fractions lower than 0.35 is
fundamentally different from the expected nonmonotonic effect on mobility
due to jamming at a higher volume fraction. In the latter case, the
higher volume fraction for random closed packing for ellipsoids compared
with spheres also suggests a higher volume fraction for dynamical
arrest of the short-time self-diffusion. Given the stronger decay
at low volume fractions (cf. Figure ), the self-diffusion of ellipsoids and spheres have
to cross somewhere, implying a nonmonotonic effect of the shape on
self-diffusion. In our case, we report a nonmonotonic contribution
to the slowing-down of cage diffusion at volume fractions below 0.35
where the systems are still clearly dynamic. Under these conditions,
the short-time self-diffusion shows no sign of nonmonotonic behavior
(Figure ), and thus
the observed nonmonotonic signature is an intrinsic property of the
short-time cage diffusion.
Conclusions
We have presented a
nonmonotonic contribution to the crowding effect
on short-time cage diffusion due to a nonspherical shape. Using mesoscale
MPC-MD simulations accounting for hydrodynamic interactions in semidilute
solutions with volume fractions up to 0.35, we can conclusively link
this effect to the interplay of two factors: first, the normalized
mobility of ellipsoids is reduced compared with that of spheres for
the full volume fraction range. Second, the cage configuration in
suspensions of ellipsoids is less homogeneous and less compact than
for spheres, enabling a faster cage relaxation of ellipsoids compared
with spheres. The compensation of these two factors at larger volume
fractions causes the nonmonotonic characteristic of the additional
crowding effect due to a nonspherical shape.Our findings show
that the shape plays an important role in dense
suspensions already in the initial short-time regime. This finding
on the initial step of structural relaxation challenges the prevailing
concept of effective sphere models often used to study and describe
dense systems of weakly nonspherical particles in various areas such
as cell biophysics, formulation of pharmaceuticals, nanotechnological
applications, or fundamental colloid science. Moreover, it also provides
interesting perspectives for the statistical–mechanistic understanding
of dynamical arrest in anisotropic systems prevalent in soft and biological
matter.
Authors: Christoph Gögelein; Gerhard Nägele; Remco Tuinier; Thomas Gibaud; Anna Stradner; Peter Schurtenberger Journal: J Chem Phys Date: 2008-08-28 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Felix Roosen-Runge; Marcus Hennig; Fajun Zhang; Robert M J Jacobs; Michael Sztucki; Helmut Schober; Tilo Seydel; Frank Schreiber Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-07-05 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Felix Roosen-Runge; Alessandro Gulotta; Saskia Bucciarelli; Lucía Casal-Dujat; Tommy Garting; Nicholas Skar-Gislinge; Marc Obiols-Rabasa; Bela Farago; Emanuela Zaccarelli; Peter Schurtenberger; Anna Stradner Journal: Biophys J Date: 2020-11-13 Impact factor: 4.033