Ionic Coulomb blockade

From testwiki
Revision as of 10:15, 26 February 2025 by imported>TheMathCat (wikilink)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Short description Ionic Coulomb blockade (ICB)[1][2] is an electrostatic phenomenon predicted by M. Krems and Massimiliano Di Ventra (UC San Diego)[1] that appears in ionic transport through mesoscopic electro-diffusive systems (artificial nanopores[1][3] and biological ion channels[2]) and manifests itself as oscillatory dependences of the conductance on the fixed charge Qf in the pore[2] ( or on the external voltage V, or on the bulk concentration cb[1]).

ICB represents an ion-related counterpart of the better-known electronic Coulomb blockade (ECB) that is observed in quantum dots.[4][5] Both ICB and ECB arise from quantisation of the electric charge and from an electrostatic exclusion principle and they share in common a number of effects and underlying physical mechanisms. ICB provides some specific effects related to the existence of ions of different charge q=ze (different in both sign and value) where integer z is ion valence and e is the elementary charge, in contrast to the single-valence electrons of ECB (z=1).

ICB effects appear in tiny pores whose self-capacitance Cs is so small that the charging energy of a single ion ΔE=z2e2/(2Cs)becomes large compared to the thermal energy per particle ( ΔEkBT). In such cases there is strong quantisation of the energy spectrum inside the pore, and the system may either be “blockaded” against the transportation of ions or, in the opposite extreme, it may show resonant barrier-less conduction,[6][2] depending on the free energy bias coming from Qf, V, or logcb.

The ICB model claims that Qf is a primary determinant of conduction and selectivity for particular ions, and the predicted oscillations in conductance and an associated Coulomb staircase of channel occupancy vs Qf[2] are expected to be strong effects in the cases of divalent ions (z=2) or trivalent ions (z=3).

Some effects, now recognised as belonging to ICB, were discovered and considered earlier in precursor papers on electrostatics-governed conduction mechanisms in channels and nanopores.[7][8][9][10][11]

The manifestations of ICB have been observed in water-filled sub-nanometre pores through a 2D MoSA2 monolayer,[3] revealed by Brownian dynamics (BD) simulations of calcium conductance bands in narrow channels,[2][12] and account for a diversity of effects seen in biological ion channels.[2] ICB predictions have also been confirmed by a mutation study of divalent blockade in the NaChBac bacterial channel.[13]

Model

Generic electrostatic model of channel/nanopore

Fig. 1. Generic electrostatic and Brownian dynamics model of a channel or nanopore

ICB effects may be derived on the basis of a simplified electrostatics/Brownian dynamics model of a nanopore or of the selectivity filter of an ion channel.[8] The model represents the channel/pore as a charged hole through a water-filled protein hub embedded in the membrane. Its fixed charge

Qf

is considered as a uniform, centrally placed, rigid ring (Fig.1). The channel is assumed to have geometrical parameters length

L1

nm and radius

R0.30.5

nm, allowing for the single-file movement of partially hydrated ions.

The model represents the water and protein as continuous media with dielectric constants εw=80 and εp=210 respectively. The mobile ions are described as discrete entities with valence z and of radius Rion, moving stochastically through the pore, governed by the self-consistently coupled Poisson's electrostatic equation and Langevin stochastic equation.

The model is applicable to both cationic[9] and anionic[14] biological ion channels and to artificial nanopores.[1][3]

Electrostatics

The  mobile ion is assumed to be partially hydrated  (typically retaining its first hydration shell[15]) and carrying charge q=ze where e is the elementary charge (e.g. the Ca2+ ion with z=2). The model allows one to derive the pore and ion parameters satisfying the barrier-less permeation conditions, and to do so from basic electrostatics taking account of charge quantisation.

The potential energy En of a channel/pore containing n ions can be decomposed into electrostatic energy[1][2][8]EnES , dehydration energy,[15] EnDH and ion-ion local interaction energy EnINT:En=EnES+EnDH+EnINT...(En Decomposition) The basic ICB model makes the simplifying approximation that En=EnES, whence:Qn=zen+Qf(Excess charge)En=Qn22Cs(Electrostatic energy)Cs=4πϵ0ϵwR2L(Self-capacitance)where Qn is the net charge of the pore when it contains n identical ions of valence z, the sign of the moving ions being opposite to that of the Qf, Cs represents the electrostatic self-capacitance of the pore, and ϵ0 is the electric permittivity of the vacuum.

Resonant barrier-less conduction

Fig.2. Resonant barrier-less conduction of CaA2+ions, with energies E plotted vertically. (a) Plot of μexas a function of fixed charge Qf/e and position x in the channel. At the "resonant" value of Qf/e=1 the transition is almost barrier-less (red cross-section). (b) Plots of ΔE (blue curve) and EAFF (dashed-green) and their sum μex (red) against x for Qf/e=1, showing that barrier-less conduction originates in a near-cancellation between ΔE and EAFF.

Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics describe systems that have variable numbers of particles via the chemical potential μ, defined as Gibbs free energy G per particle:[16][17]Gn=EnTSn(Gibbs free energy)μn=Gn+1Gn(Chemical potential), where Gn is the Gibbs free energy for the system of n particles. In thermal and particle equilibrium with bulk reservoirs, the entire system has a common value of chemical potential μ=μF (the Fermi level in other contexts).[16] The free energy needed for the entry of a new ion to the channel is defined by the excess chemical potential μex=μnμF[16] which (ignoring an entropy term ) can be written as μex=En+1En=ΔE+EAFF(Coulomb gap)ΔE=z2e22Cs;(Charging energy)EAFF=zeCs(zen+Qf)(Affinity energy) where ΔE is the charging energy (self-energy barrier) of an incoming ion and EAFFis its affinity (i.e. energy of attraction to the binding site Qf). The difference in energy between ΔE and ΔEAFF (Fig.2.) defines the ionic energy level separation (Coulomb gap) and gives rise to most of the observed ICB effects.

In selective ion channels, the favoured ionic species passes through the channel almost at the rate of free diffusion, despite the strong affinity to the binding site. This conductivity-selectivity paradox has been explained as being a consequence of selective barrier-less conduction.[6][10][17][18] In the ICB model, this occurs when ΔE is almost exactly balanced by EAFF (μex0), which happens for a particular value of Qf (Fig.2.).[12] This resonant value of Qf depends on the ionic properties z and Rion (implicitly, via the Rion-dependent dehydration energy [6][15]), thereby providing a basis for selectivity.

Oscillations of conductance

Fig.3. Ionic Coulomb blockade illustrated by BD-simulations of Ca 2+ conduction, as the fixed charge Qf is varied: (a) Ca 2+ conduction bands; (b) Ca 2+ occupancy, forming a Coulomb staircase; and (c) Ground state energy (red)

The ICB model explicitly predicts an oscillatory dependence of conduction on

Qf

, with two interlaced sets of singularities associated with a sequentially increasing number of ions

n=1,2,3,...

in the channel (Fig.3A).

Electrostatic blockade points Zn correspond to minima in the ground state energy of the pore (Fig.3C).EG(Qf)=minnEn(Qf)(Ground state) The Zn points (En/Qf=0) are equivalent to neutralisation points[12] where Qn=0.

Resonant conduction points Mn correspond to the barrier-less condition: μex=0, or ΔEEAFF.

The values of Zn and Mn[2] are given by the simple formulaeZn=zen(Electrostatic blockade)Mn=ze(n+1/2)(Resonant conduction),i.e. the period of conductance oscillations in Qf, Δ=|Mn+1Mn|=|Zn+1Zn|=|ze|.

For z=2, in a typical ion channel geometry, ΔE/(kBT)201, and ICB becomes strong. Consequently, plots of the BD-simulated CaA2+current J vs Qf exhibit multi-ion conduction bands - strong Coulomb blockade oscillations between minima Znand maxima Mn(Fig.3A)).[12]

The point Z0=0 corresponds to an uncharged pore with Qf=0. Such pores are blockaded for ions of either sign.

Coulomb staircase

The ICB oscillations in conductance correspond to a Coulomb staircase in the pore occupancy Pc, with transition regions corresponding to Mn and saturation regions corresponding to Zn (Fig.3B) . The shape of the staircase is described by the Fermi-Dirac (FD) distribution,[2] similarly to the Coulomb staircases of quantum dots.[5] Thus, for the 01 transition, the FD function is: Pc=[1+1Pbexp(μexkBT)]1;(Fermi-Dirac distribution)μex=zeCs(QfM0).Here μex is the excess chemical potential for the particular ion and Pb is an equivalent bulk occupancy related to pore volume. The saturated FD statistics of occupancy is equivalent to the Langmuir isotherm[19] or to Michaelis–Menten kinetics.[20]

It is the factor 1/Pb that gives rise to the concentration-related shift in the staircase seen in Fig.3B.

Shift of singular points

Addition of the partial excess chemical potentials μexY coming from different sources Y(including dehydration,[15] local binding,[21] volume exclusion etc.[9][17]) leads to the ICB barrier-less condition μex=0 leads to a proper shift in the ICB resonant points Mn, described by a "shift equation" :[22][21]ΔMn=CszeYμexY(Shift equation) i.e. the additional energy contributions μexY lead to shifts in the resonant barrier-less point M0.

The more important of these shifts (excess potentials) are:

  •  A concentration-related shift μexES=kBTlog(Pb) arising from the bulk entropy[17]
  •  A dehydration-related shift μexDH, arising from partial dehydration penalty [15]
  • A local binding-related shift μexINT, coming from energy of local binding [21] and surface effects.[23]

In artificial nanopores

Sub-nm MoS2 pores

Following its prediction based on analytic theory[1][2] and molecular dynamics simulations, experimental evidence for ICB emerged from experiments[3] on monolayer MoSA2 pierced by a single 0.6nm nanopore. Highly non-Ohmic conduction was observed between aqueous ionic solutions on either side of the membrane. In particular, for low voltages across the membrane, the current remained close to zero, but it rose abruptly when a threshold of about 400mV was exceeded. This was interpreted as complete ionic Coulomb blockade of current in the (uncharged) nanopore due to the large potential barrier at low voltages. But the application of larger voltages pulled the barrier down, producing accessible states into which transitions could occur, thus leading to conduction.

In biological ion channels

The realisation that ICB could occur in biological ion channels[2] accounted for several experimentally observed features of selectivity, including:

Valence selectivity

Valence selectivity is the channel's ability to discriminate between ions of different valence z, wherein e.g. a calcium channel favours Ca2+ ions over Na+ ions by a factor of up to 1000×.[24] Valence selectivity has been attributed variously to pure electrostatics,[11] or to a charge space competition mechanism,[25] or to a snug fit of the ion to ligands,[26] or to quantised dehydration.[27] In the ICB model, valence selectivity arises from electrostatics, namely from z-dependence of the value of Qf=Mn=ze(n+1/2) needed to provide for barrier-less conduction.

Correspondingly, the ICB model provides explanations of why site-directed mutations that alter Qf can destroy the channel by blockading it, or can alter its selectivity from favouring Ca2+ ions to favouring Na+ ions, or vice versa [28].

Divalent blockade

Divalent (e.g. Ca2+) blockade of monovalent (e.g. Na+) currents is observed in some types of ion channels. Namely,[24] Na+ ions in a pure sodium solution pass unimpeded through a calcium channel, but are blocked by tiny (nM) extracellular concentrations of Ca2+ ions.[24] ICB provides a transparent explanation of both the phenomenon itself and of the Langmuir-isotherm-shape of the current vs. log[Ca2+] attenuation curve, deriving them from the strong affinity and an FD distribution of CaA2+ions.[2][13] Vice versa, appearance divalent blockade presents strong evidence in favour of ICB

Similarly, ICB can account for the divalent (Iodide IA2) blockade that has been observed in biological chloride (ClA)-selective channels.[14]

Special features

Comparisons between ICB and ECB

ICB and ECB should be considered as two versions of the same fundamental electrostatic phenomenon. Both ICB and ECB are based on charge quantisation and on the finite single-particle charging energy ΔE, resulting in close similarity of the governing equations and manifestations of these closely related phenomena. Nonetheless, there are important distinctions between ICB and ECB: their similarities and differences are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. Comparison between ICB and ECB
Property ICB ECB
Mobile charge carriers cations (Na+,K+,Ca2+, etc...),

anions (Cl,I2, etc.)

electrons (e)
Valence of mobile charge carriers, z positive (+1, +2, +3,...),

negative (-1, -2...)

z=1
Transport engine Classical diffusion QM tunneling
Conductance oscillations Yes, valence dependent Yes
Coulomb staircase for occupancy, Pc Yes, FD-shaped Yes, FD-shaped

Particular cases

Coulomb blockade can also appear in superconductors; in such a case the free charge carriers are Cooper pairs (z=2) [29]

In addition, Pauli spin blockade [30] represents a special kind of Coulomb blockade, connected with Pauli exclusion principle.

Quantum analogies

Despite appearing in completely classical systems, ICB exhibits some phenomena reminiscent of quantum-mechanics (QM). They arise because the charge/entity discreteness of the ions leads to quantisation of the energy ΔE spectrum and hence to the QM-analogies:[31]

  • Noise-driven diffusive motion provides for escape over barriers, comparable to QM-tunnelling in ECB.
  • The particular FD shape[2] of the Ca2+ occupancy vs log[Ca2+] plays a significant role in the ICB explanation of the divalent blockade phenomenon.[13] The appearance of an FD distribution in the diffusion of classical particles obeying an exclusion principle, has been demonstrated rigorously.[19][32][33]

See also

References

Template:Reflist