Tight-Binding Approximations in 1D and 2D Coupled-Cavity Photonic Crystal Structures

Light confinement and controlling an optical field has numerous applications in the field of telecommunications for optical signals processing. When the wavelength of the electromagnetic field is on the order of the period of a photonic microstructure, the field undergoes reflection, refraction, and coherent scattering. This produces photonic bandgaps, forbidden frequency regions or spectral stop bands where light cannot exist. Dielectric perturbations that break the perfect periodicity of these structures produce what is analogous to an impurity state in the bandgap of a semiconductor. The defect modes that exist at discrete frequencies within the photonic bandgap are spatially localized about the cavity-defects in the photonic crystal. In this thesis the properties of two tight-binding approximations (TBAs) are investigated in one-dimensional and two-dimensional coupled-cavity photonic crystal structures We require an efficient and simple approach that ensures the continuity of the electromagnetic field across dielectric interfaces in complex structures. In this thesis we develop \textrm{E} -- and \textrm{D} --TBAs to calculate the modes in finite 1D and 2D two-defect coupled-cavity photonic crystal structures. In the \textrm{E} -- and \textrm{D} --TBAs we expand the coupled-cavity \overrightarrow{E} --modes in terms of the individual \overrightarrow{E} -- and \overrightarrow{D} --modes, respectively. We investigate the dependence of the defect modes, their frequencies and quality factors on the relative placement of the defects in the photonic crystal structures. We then elucidate the differences between the two TBA formulations, and describe the conditions under which these formulations may be more robust when encountering a dielectric perturbation. Our 1D analysis showed that the 1D modes were sensitive to the structure geometry. The antisymmetric \textrm{D} mode amplitudes show that the \textrm{D} --TBA did not capture the correct (tangential \overrightarrow{E} --field) boundary conditions. However, the \textrm{D} --TBA did not yield significantly poorer results compared to the \textrm{E} --TBA. Our 2D analysis reveals that the \textrm{E} -- and \textrm{D} --TBAs produced nearly identical mode profiles for every structure. Plots of the relative difference between the \textrm{E} and \textrm{D} mode amplitudes show that the \textrm{D} --TBA did capture the correct (normal \overrightarrow{E} --field) boundary conditions. We found that the 2D TBA CC mode calculations were 125-150 times faster than an FDTD calculation for the same two-defect PCS. Notwithstanding this efficiency, the appropriateness of either TBA was found to depend on the geometry of the structure and the mode(s), i.e. whether or not the mode has a large normal or tangential component.

THE HERPESVIRUS NUCLEAR EGRESS COMPLEX COMPONENT, UL31, IS RECRUITED TO SITES OF DNA DAMAGE THROUGH POLY(ADP-RIBOSE) BINDING

The herpes simplex virus (HSV) UL31 gene encodes a conserved member of the herpesvirus nuclear egress complex that not only functions in the egress of DNA-containing capsids from the nucleus, but is also required for optimal viral genome expression, replication and packaging into capsids. Here, we report that the UL31 protein from HSV-2 and the orthologous protein, ORF69, from Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV) are recruited to sites of DNA damage. Recruitment of UL31 to sites of DNA damage occurred in HSV-2 infected cells, but did not require other viral proteins. The N-terminus of UL31 contains sequences resembling a poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR) binding motif. As protein poly-ADP ribosylation (PARylation) is a hallmark of the DNA damage response we examined the relationship between PARylation and UL31 recruitment to DNA damage. While the PAR polymerase (PARP)1/2 inhibitor, olaparib, prevented UL31 recruitment to damaged DNA, KU55933 inhibition of signaling through the ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM) DNA damage response pathway had no effect. These findings were further supported by experiments demonstrating direct and specific interaction between HSV-2 UL31 and PAR using purified components. Co-transfection with the viral kinase Us3, known to phosphorylate UL31, inhibited UL31 recruitment to DNA damage but also prevented the recruitment of other proteins recruited to DNA damage sites. The viral E3 ubiquitin ligase ICP0 was observed to co-localize with UL31 in transfected cells in a manner that is independent of the PAR-binding ability of UL31. However, inhibition of PARP1/2/3 did not reduce the ability of HSV-2 to replicate and we observed reduced PAR levels in the nuclei of infected cells. This study reveals a previously unrecognized function for UL31 orthologs and may suggest that the recognition of PAR by UL31 is coupled to the nuclear egress of herpesvirus capsids, influences viral DNA replication and packaging, or possibly modulates the DNA damage response mounted by virally infected cells.