Paper detail

Efficient Energy Transfer in Light-Harvesting Systems, II: Quantum-Classical Comparison, Flux Network, and Robustness Analysis

Following the calculation of optimal energy transfer in thermal environment in our first paper (Wu et al., New J. Phys., 2010, 12, 105012), full quantum dynamics and leading-order `classical' hopping kinetics are compared in the seven-site Fenna-Matthews-Olson (FMO) protein complex. The difference between these two dynamic descriptions is due to higher-order quantum corrections. Two thermal bath models, classical white noise (the Haken-Strobl-Reineker model) and quantum Debye model, are considered. In the seven-site FMO model, we observe that higher-order corrections lead to negligible changes in the trapping time or in energy transfer efficiency around the optimal and physiological conditions (2% in the HSR model and 0.1% in the quantum Debye model for the initial site at BChl 1). However, using the concept of integrated flux, we can identify significant differences in branching probabilities of the energy transfer network between hopping kinetics and quantum dynamics (26% in the HSR model and 32% in the quantum Debye model for the initial site at BChl 1). This observation indicates that the quantum coherence can significantly change the distribution of energy transfer pathways in the flux network with the efficiency nearly the same. The quantum-classical comparison of the average trapping time with the removal of the bottleneck site, BChl 4, demonstrates the robustness of the efficient energy transfer by the mechanism of multi-site quantum coherence. To reconcile with the latest eight-site FMO model, the quantum-classical comparison with the flux network analysis is summarized in the appendix. The eight-site FMO model yields similar trapping time and network structure as the seven-site FMO model but leads to a more disperse distribution of energy transfer pathways.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.