Stochastic molecular simulation reveals diffusion and confinement affect reaction occupancy rates, impacting kinetics.
In the standard elementary theory of reaction kinetics, the rate of product formation does not depend upon the volume confining the reaction; it only depends on average concentrations and constant rate parameters. However, even in simple reactions such as A + B = C, several volume and spatially related factors could affect rates, such as localized depletion zones, a bias toward rebinding immediately after release, large stochastic fluctuations of local concentrations with low reactant numbers, and reflection at the outer boundary. We employ a stochastic molecular simulation approach to see if confinement of A and B into a very small volume affects the rate of production of C. For simplicity, the geometry is a small spherical target A (radius a) centered in a reflecting shell (radius b where b > a) with reactant B diffusing in the intermediate space. An analytical theory for such a simple setup can be quite complex, often involving mathematical series that only slowly converge. In our simulations, whenever a molecule of B encounters the surface of A, it may bind with a specified on-probability and remains bound for a time determined by a constant off-probability per unit time. Successful binding is allowed to occur only if the target A is not already bound with another B (i.e., a target A accommodates only one B at a time). After either an unsuccessful binding attempt or a recently released successful binding, B resumes its random diffusion starting from near the surface of A. Starting from zero occupancy at time t = 0, our stochastic simulations show an increasing rate of occupancy of A vs. time t as the confinement volume is made small (while always keeping the concentration of B constant). The relevance to prebiotic reaction kinetics in abiotically generated small volumes, and to small-volume subcellular organelles are discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thompson et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: