Frustrated Self-Assembly of Non-Euclidean Crystals of Nanoparticles

Francesco Serafin,1 Jun Lu,2 Nicholas Kotov,2 Kai Sun,1 and Xiaoming Mao1, ∗ 1Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1040, USA 2Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA (Dated: May 18, 2021) Self-organized complex structures in nature, e.g., viral capsids, hierarchical biopolymers, and bacterial flagella, offer efficiency, adaptability, robustness, and multi-functionality. Can we program the self-assembly of three-dimensional (3D) complex structures using simple building blocks, and reach similar or higher level of sophistication in engineered materials? Here we present an analytic theory for the self-assembly of polyhedral nanoparticles (NPs) based on their crystal structures in non-Euclidean space. We show that the unavoidable geometrical frustration of these particle shapes, combined with competing attractive and repulsive interparticle interactions, lead to controllable self-assembly of structures of complex order. Applying this theory to tetrahedral NPs, we find high- yield and enantiopure self-assembly of helicoidal ribbons, exhibiting qualitative agreement with experimental observations. We expect that this theory will offer a general framework for the self- assembly of simple polyhedral building blocks into rich complex morphologies with new material capabilities such as tunable optical activity, essential for multiple emerging technologies.

I. INTRODUCTION “frustrated self-assembly” problem where both geomet- ric frustration [17–23] and repulsion-attraction frustra- Chemically synthesized NPs display a great diversity tion come into play [24]. of polyhedral shapes [1]. Recent experiments revealed Despite the complexity originating from multiple frus- that under attractive interactions from van der Waals trations, polyhedral NPs assembled into ordered struc- forces, hydrogen bonds, and coordination bonds, these tures such as helices in experiments [9]. We conjecture NPs can form a number of assemblies with interesting that this self-assembly phenomenon can be understood structural order, high complexity, and hierarchy at the theoretically using crystalline structures of these polyhe- nanoscale, from helices to curved platelets, capsids, and dra in non-Euclidean space. Although the assembly of hedgehogs [2–11]. How these simple polyhedral building most polyhedra is geometrically frustrated in Euclidean blocks led to the observed complex structures remains 3D space, they can form non-Euclidean crystals in some an open fundamental question. Simulations of these sys- ideal curved space, where gaps or overlaps are eliminated tems face challenges from both the intrinsic complexity by precisely tuning the space’s Gaussian curvature [16]. of NP-NP interactions and the rugged free-energy land- This can be illustrated by a familiar example in 2D. scape of the high-dimensional phase space of their as- Regular pentagons cannot tile a 2D Euclidean surface. sembly [12, 13]. Real-time imaging techniques have only When positive Gaussian curvature is introduced into the recently begun to reach the resolution to investigate the surface, the gaps between the pentagons close while the pathways of these self-assembly problems [14, 15]. The plane turns into a sphere, and the pentagons fold into answer to this question is not only important for emerg- an unfrustrated non-Euclidean crystal: the regular do- ing technologies stemming from the unique properties of decahedron (Fig. 1b). Similarly, any regular polyhedron these nanoscale assemblies, but also offers new insight can always tile as a non-Euclidean crystal in a 3D curved into how complex hierarchical structures form in nature. space [16, 25] called a regular honeycomb, or polytope The mathematical problem of packing regular poly- when the number of tiles is finite. These non-Euclidean hedra in 3D Euclidean (flat) space provides a hint to crystals are characterized by perfect, 100% volume frac- answering this intriguing question. It is the rule rather tion packings of these polyhedra, and thus are the true than the exception that a generic polyhedron does not thermodynamics ground states of the problem. General tile 3D Euclidean space [16]. Taking the tetrahedron non-Euclidean crystals have been utilized in understand- as an example, one finds that five tetrahedra can form ing complex structures of condensed matter from Frank- arXiv:2010.03087v2 [cond-mat.soft] 17 May 2021 a pentamer with a small gap, and twenty tetrahedra Kasper phases to metallic glasses, hard-disk packings, “almost” form an icosahedron, again leaving small gaps liquid crystalline order, nanoparticle supercrystals, and (Fig. 1a). Perfect face-to-face attachment can only be biological materials [25–41]. enforced at the expense of elastic stress. Furthermore, In this paper, we show that non-Euclidean crystals realistic NPs also contain electrostatic charge, leading to provide us with sets of “reference metrics” ¯g [42] of the repulsions that compete with attractions. These features stress-free packing of these polyhedral NPs, characteriz- make the self-assembly of polyhedral NPs an interesting ing their thermodynamic ground states (which cannot be realized in Euclidean 3D space), and thus offer a starting point to construct an energy functional of the assembled structures, the minimization of which guides us in the ∗ [email protected] search for self-assembly morphologies. 2

II. MODEL ENERGY OF FRUSTRATED NANOPARTICLE SELF-ASSEMBLY

In this section we discuss a general model energy for frustrated NP self-assembly. We will discuss in more de- tail how NP interactions and kinetics determine the ac- tual form of this energy in the next section, as we apply this general model to the system of tetrahedral NPs–the experimental system studied in Ref. [9] (Fig. 1cd). We construct the general energy of the assembly by adding up the energy associated with (i) the aforemen- tioned elastic frustration, Eelastic, (ii) electrostatic repul- sion between the NPs, Erepulsion, (iii) the boundary of the assembly, Eboundary, and (iv) binding between the NPs, FIG. 1. Geometric frustration of polyhedra and polygons, E , and tetrahedral NPs. a, Five tetrahedra can almost form a bind pentamer; Twenty tetrahedra can almost form an icosahe- E = E + E + E + E . (1) dron. b, A 2D example of geometric frustration: pentagons elastic repulsion boundary bind do not tile Euclidean surface, but can form a regular crystal (dodecahedron) on the 2-sphere S2. c, CdTe tetrahedral NPs Although this self-assembly problem is discrete in nature (yellow tetrahedra) are coated with a layer of chiral ligands as the building blocks are individual polyhedral NPs, we (L- or D-Cysteine). The blue-shaded areas represent the soft consider this energy in the continuum limit, where ana- interaction regions where coordination bridges between lig- lytic results can be obtained, by modeling the NPs and ands can form. d, Elastic deformations in this continuum coordination bonds between them as a homogeneous con- theory represent distortions of the soft ligand interactions. tinuum (see more details in Sec. III). In this continuum theory, the elastic energy is 1 R √ 3 √ 3 Eelastic = 2 M¯ Eelastic det g¯ d x, where det g¯ d x is the reference volume element and M¯ is a region in the The self-assembly we consider here are driven by com- non-Euclidean crystal. The (Euclidean) actual metric of peting attractive and repulsive interactions and the sur- the assembly g cannot be equal to the metric of the non- face energy is typically low. These factors lead to ar- Euclidean crystal ¯g (which describes the ideal, stress-free, rested growth in certain directions, allowing a rich set of distances between the NPs) everywhere, and a strain low-dimensional morphologies (e.g., 2D-sheets and 1D- 1 bundles rather than 3D-bulk solids). A typical exam-  = (g − ¯g), (2) ple of this type of NP self-assembly experiment has been 2 described in Ref. [9]. Thus, compared to “flattening” necessarily develops. Close to any local minimum, E schemes of non-Euclidean crystals where disclinations elastic can be expanded in powers of the strain tensor: are introduced to relieve the stress studied in Refs. [25– 30, 32–38], we consider a different route of stress-relief τ ν ν 2 Eelastic = 2µ   + λ( ) , (3) where low-dimensional assemblies are free to choose their ν τ ν morphologies in Euclidean 3D space. The introduction where µ, λ are the Lam´ecoefficients, ν, τ = 1, 2, 3 are of disclinations can further reduce the stress of the as- the 3 spatial directions and indices are contracted with semblies, and we leave that for future work. ¯g. These elastic constants are mainly determined by the We apply our theory to this experiment where tetra- deformation of the ligands and coordination bonds be- hedral NPs assemble, and show good qualitative agree- tween the NPs, instead of the NPs thermselves. This ment between the predicted and observed trend of how Eelastic captures the unavoidable geometric frustration of the assembled morphologies depend on experimental pa- assembling polyhedra NPs in 3D Euclidean space, in a rameters which control the interactions between the NPs. continuum limit. Importantly, we find that the electrostatic repulsion be- The repulsion term Erepulsion encodes screened as well tween the NPs provide an experimentally realistic tuning as long-ranged electrostatic repulsion, commonly found knob for the final morphology of the assembly. in NPs. The boundary term Eboundary describes surface energy associated with the boundary of the assembly. This theory not only can be applied to a broad range The binding energy Ebind denotes the energy released of NP assembly systems to explain and predict the mor- while the NPs bind, and is proportional to the volume of phologies of the assembly, but also brings fundamental the assembly. understandings on how a completely new design space As mentioned above, we are interested in the can be opened for the nanoscale self-assembly of complex, case where complex low-dimensional morphologies are curved, and hierarchical structures from simple polyhe- adopted by the NPs to minimize the frustration in 3D dral and other NPs. Euclidean space as well as the electrostatic repulsion. 3

This problem can be solved in two steps. In step one, we tified by considering the interactions between the NPs. choose the appropriate slice M¯ from the non-Euclidean The NPs are polydisperse with sizes in the range of crystal, and in step two, we solve for the morphology of 3 ∼ 5nm, while the size of the “coordination bridge” the assembled structure. For any given M¯ , the bound- (the Cys ligands on both NPs and the Cd++ ion in be- ary and binding energies, Eboundary + Ebind, are fixed, tween) is about 1nm. Thus, rather than a hard-polyhedra as Eboundary depends on the number of exposed faces of model, it is more appropriate to model these NPs (in- the polyhedral NPs and Ebind depends on the volume of cluding their ligands) as deformable tetrahedra, and the M¯ , both of which are fixed for a given M¯ . Thus, in the assemblies as an elastic continuum. Note that the elas- second step, morphology only depends on the combina- ticity of this continuum mainly comes from the variation tion of Eelastic + Erepulsion. This second step is the main of the interaction energy of the NPs as the NPs displace theoretical advance of this paper. and rotate relative to one another, and not the elasticity The first step of determining the appropriate slice M¯ of the CdTe NP cores, which are very stiff. itself is a considerably more complicated question that A term-by-term decomposition of the model energy in requires non-equilibrium statistical mechanics. The first Eq. (1) can be analyzed as follows for this experimen- ¯ determining factor for the choice of M comes from the tal system. The term Ebind is the binding energy from kinetic pathways. Any self-assembly follows a pathway the Van der Waals, hydrogen bonding, and coordina- through the formation of intermediate structures, such tion bonds between the NPs, assuming perfect face-to- as small clusters, fibers, or sheets [43, 44], which are pre- face binding. This perfect binding is geometrically frus- cursors to the final configuration. Correspondingly, the trated, and the energy cost of the frustration is modeled reference non-Euclidean crystal can often be decomposed as Eelastic, where the elastic constants (µ, λ) describes into sub-structures representing the precursors. We asso- how the binding energy varies as the NP-NP attachment ciate a pathway to every decomposition of the reference deviate from the perfect bonding. The electrostatic re- non-Euclidean crystal (or equivalently, subgroups of the pulsion of the charged NPs determine the Erepulsion part. non-Euclidean crystal’s global symmetry group). The The surface term Esurface is the energy cost associated second determining factor is the competition between all with the surface between the assembly and the solution. four energy terms described above. As the assembly pro- As mentioned in Sec. II, Ebind + Esurface depends on gresses, stress builds up, often in anisotropic ways. In how the slice M¯ is cut from the non-Euclidean crys- addition, repulsion also favors 1D and 2D assemblies. At tal, and is not affected by the morphology. On the the same time, surface and binding energy drives smooth other hand, Eelastic + Erepulsion selects the morphology and tight clusters. The interplay between all these effects after the cut M¯ is given. In this paper, we focus our eventually determines the slice M¯ . Similar types of prob- quantitative theory on determining the morphology us- lems has been studied for bundles of chiral fibers [45] and ing Eelastic + Erepulsion for a given region M¯ that is a polygon assembly in 2D [20], but a general understand- sheet from the non-Euclidean crystal. We include qual- ing for 3D self-assembly problems has not been reached itative discussions on general principles on what deter- yet. In Sec. III we discuss how the slice M¯ is selected for mines the cut of M¯ regarding both the competition be- a system of tetrahedral NPs based on kinetic pathways tween Eelastic +Erepulsion and Ebind +Esurface and kinetic and energetic arguments. pathways in Sec. IV and VI. The essential step to construct Eelastic is to find the ideal metric ¯g, which describes the stress-free distance III. TETRAHEDRAL NANOPARTICLES AND between the tetrahedra, which is inherited from the non- THEIR CURVED CRYSTALS Euclidean crystal. For these tetrahedra NPs, we choose to start from the 600-cell polytope, which is a periodic Here we specialize the model to the assembly of tiling of the 3-sphere S3 (i.e. the surface of a ball in 4D charged tetrahedral CdTe NPs binding via chiral sur- Euclidean space) by regular tetrahedra with the lowest face ligands. These NPs in experiments self-assemble curvature, and thus least stressed in Euclidean space. into enantiopure and uniform helices at the scale of mi- To understand the structure of the 600-cell (detailed in crons [9]. App. B), let’s start by considering how tetrahedra assem- In these experiments, the NPs assemble in a mixture ble when they are brought together by attractive interac- of water and methanol, and the surface of the NPs are tions. It is well-known that they can form infinite straight coated with L- or D- Cysteine (Cys) ligands. Van der 1D helices with no frustration, either Left-handed (LH) Waals forces, hydrogen bonding, and coordination bonds or Rigth-handed (RH), called “tetrahelices” or Bernal between ligands induce face-to-face binding of the NPs. spirals (Fig. 2a) [46]. Cadmium ions (Cd++) are added to regulate the lig- The chiral Cys ligands induce a small rotation angle and coordination bonds between the NP’s surfaces (see between two bound tetrahedral NPs, rather than perfect App. A for more details of the experiment). face-to-face binding. As shown in Fig. 2b, this twist en- We apply the general energy introduced in Sec. II to ergetically selects tetrahelices with the same handedness this problem of frustrated assembly of tetrahedra NPs as the ligands. Under the spontaneous tendency of tetra- (Fig. 1cd). The continuum approach of this theory is jus- hedra to form tetrahelices, even a small chiral bias in the 4

FIG. 2. Structure of the 600 cell. a, Tetrahelices are chiral linear assemblies of tetrahedra. b, Chiral ligands induce a twist between neighboring tetrahedra, and select and handedness of the tetrahelix. When the tetrahelix and the relative twist have the same (opposite) handedness, the distance between 4th-nearest neighbor tetrahedra’s centers d(1, 4) increases (reduces), thus lowering (increasing) their electrostatic repulsion. At the same time, the edges of the tetrahelix become more (less) coiled. c, In 3D Euclidean space, two tetrahelices cannot fit side-to-side. d, Two tetrahelices fitting perfectly together on the 3-sphere S3 (a stereographic projection). e, The base icosahedron of the 600 cell. The 4 toroidal shells are indicated by color gradient, with the α coordinate of the boundaries between them marked. f-g, 4 toroidal shells of the 600 cell, each containing 5 tetrahelices. f, North pole bundle (0 < α < αN ): 5 tetrahelices around the North pole of the base. g, North ring of 5 tetrahelices wrapped around the North pole bundle (the latter is not visible). h, South ring of 5 tetrahelices wrapped around the North ring. The surface triangles are facing the South pole of the base. The north and south rings together occupy the space αN < α < αS i, South pole bundle (αS < α < π/2): 5 tetrahelices are closely packed around the South pole of the base. j, The coordinate Φµ = (α, β, θ) (stereographic projection). k, The slice M¯ , which contains the north and south rings (g and h, a total of 300 tetrahedra arranged in 10 tetrahelices, corresponding to the middle 10 triangles in the base icosahedron in e), are characterized by layers of constant α surfaces within αN < α < αS . The angle between (θ, β) evolves across the layers, according to the reference metric [Eq. (4)]. l, The middle layer of M¯ is the Clifford torus (α = π/4, represented as a square with opposite edges identified). The θ axis is along the RH tetrahelices, and along the long side of the ribbon when RH tetrahelices assemble. The assembled ribbon (gray rectangle) has reference metric g¯ from the 600 cell but is not limited by the size of the Clifford torus. ligands can propagate along the tetrahelix, giving it the the reference metric. The twist due to the ligands is a same handedness. In the following discussion, we only perturbative effect that can be ignored in this initial con- use this chiral symmetry breaking to select the fibration, sideration. but geometrically we still use the undistorted 600-cell as Self-assembly of tetrahelices is geometrically frustrated 5 in 3D Euclidean space, because the twist forbids two ho- direction is only limited by the non-equilibrium nucle- mochiral tetrahelices to be glued side-to-side (Fig. 2c), ation process of the assembly, and not by stress, so it but it can be realized on the hypersphere S3(R) of radius can reach the scale of microns, as observed in the ex- R in Euclidean 4D space, where twist is compensated by periment. In particular, as shown in Fig. 2l, tetrahe- curvature. The 3-sphere’s radius R is fixed by the tetra- dra coated with L-Cys form LH tetrahelices, leading to a hedron’s√ size a: R = φa with φ being the golden ratio low-stress direction along β, and tetrahedra coated with φ = (1 + 5)/2. The tetrahelices appear as closed paral- D-Cys form RH tetrahelices, leading to a low-stress di- lel rings of 30 tetrahedra touching perfectly side to side rection along θ. Second, from the energetic perspective, (Fig. 2d). 20 such (homochiral) terahelices organized in 4 as the tetrahelices bind along directions perpendicular nested toroidal shells form the 600-cell regular polytope to this low-stress direction, repulsion favors the growth (Fig. 2f-i) which is a regular tiling of S3 with tetrahe- of thin sheets rather than thick bundles, and the stress dra [47]. The global structure of linked rings has the from geometric frustration limits the width of the sheet. topology of the Hopf fibration [48, 49] (Fig. 2e). Starting Furthermore, surface and binding energies favor smooth from all RH or all LH tetrahelices, this construction leads and tight clusters. to the same (achiral) 600-cell, so the latter has two chiral The choice of the shell between two special toroidal decompositions: one contains all LH-, and the other all surfaces ΣN,S satisfies these considerations at the same RH-tetrahelices. The 600-cell has the lowest curvature time. It contains both the LH and RH tetrahelices, which among regular polytopes formed by tetrahedra (hence a are the stress-free directions of NPs with L-Cys and D- relatively low frustration) so we take it as the reference Cys ligands respectively. Top and bottom surfaces of configuration for these self-assembling NPs. this shell are both smooth triangulated surfaces, giving It is convenient to parameterize the ideal packing of low surface energy. Next, we use Eq. (4) in Eq. (1) to the tetrahelices in the 600-cell with angular coordinates compute the effective energy of the thin assembly, and Φµ = (α, β, θ) on S3, where the α-axis is orthogonal minimize it to find the morphology of the assembly. to the concentric toroidal shells, the θ-axis is aligned Since tetrahelices in 3D Euclidean space are open with the vertices of RH-tetrahelices, and the β-axis is chains and not closed rings, we should interpret the 600- aligned with the vertices of the LH-tetrahelices (Fig. 2j cell order only as a local reference configuration: the and App. B). The reference metric ¯g, which describes global topology of the tetrahelices is not fixed by the the ideal, stress-free distances of the tetrahedra packing, topology of the reference 600-cell. This is different from takes the following form in the coordinates (α, β, θ) e.g. models of the cholesteric blue phase, which used the global topology of the 3-sphere [33] to find the frustrated 1 0 0  ground state. Therefore, we cut the shell along the θ and g¯µν = 0 1 − cos 2α . (4) β directions into an open rectangular prism (where θ, β 0 − cos 2α 1 are no longer bounded by [0, 2π[, Fig. 2l). This also jus- tifies our approximation of this sheet as an elastic thin The metric depends on α only, so the surfaces Σα (α = sheet, as the width and length can grow much greater const.) are flat tori, as shown by Bianchi in 1894 [50]. than the thickness (which the size of one tetrahedron). More detailed discussions of this reference metric can be We expandg ¯ij(α) around the mid-surface found in App. C. ¯ 2 3 g¯ij(t) =a ¯ij − 2tbij + t c¯ij + o(t ), (5)

where we defined the parameter t ≡ R(α−π/4) along the IV. THIN SHELL SELF-ASSEMBLY thickness direction, similarly to a thin shell in elasticity [51]. The reference first and second fundamental forms The next step is to choose the slice M¯ which repre- ¯ 1 a¯ij ≡ g¯ij(0) and bij ≡ − ∂tg¯ij(0) are sents the low dimensional assembly (with the thickness 2R h much smaller than width W and length L) at low sur- 1 0 1  0 −1 ¯a = and b¯ = . (6) face tension. In this paper we choose to study the (one- 0 1 R −1 0 tetrahedron-thick) shell between two special toroidal sur- π 1 faces ΣN,S located at α = αN,S ≡ 4 ∓ arctan 2 (with the The reference first fundamental form ¯a represents the mid-surface at the Clifford torus α = π/4) as our slice M¯ ideal in-plane metric of the mid-surface. The refer- (Fig. 2kl). ence second fundamental form b¯ represents the refer- This choice of M¯ is justified as follows. First, from the ence curvature. It is off-diagonal, so it favors pure kinetic pathway perspective, evidences from TEM images twist around the axis defined by the tetrahelix direc- taken at different stages of the self-assembly process in- tion. The twist between the contact surfaces of the dicate that tetrahelices form first and they later combine tetrahelices packed in the shell generates stress between into the micro-sized helical ribbons as their final assem- the upper and lower surfaces of the sheet, as depicted bly [9]. This leads to a natural stress-free direction which in Fig. 2k. This geometric frustration manifests in the is along the tetrahelices from the early stage of the as- fact that ¯a and b¯ are incompatible in a surface embed- sembly. The growth of the assembly along this stress-free ded in Euclidean space for which det b¯/ det ¯a = −1/R2, 6 while K(¯a) = 0, violating Gauss’ Theorema Egregium in this experiment are negatively charged. The elec- det b¯/ det ¯a = K(¯a). Note that the Gaussi-Codazzi- trostatic repulsion, screened by ions in the solution, ef- Peterson-Mainardi (GCPM) equations are satisfied. fectively stiffens the bending rigidity and enlarges the We minimize the energy of the shell to find the actual bending-dominated regime to much wider ribbons. As- first and second fundamental forms a and b. We first suming a uniformly charged shell with total charge q and consider the elasticity part, charge density ρ = q/hW L, the potential at a point R(σ) on the sheet is Z Eshell ' Estretch + Ebend = dA [ stretch + bend ] Z  0  elastic elastic elastic Eelastic Eelastic hρ 0 1 −d(σ, σ ) M¯ 0 φ(σ) = dA(σ ) exp (9) 4π ¯ d(σ, σ0) ξ (7) M0 where σ is the coordinate of the 2D sheet, d(σ, σ0) = where now M¯ is the Clifford torus and dA = √ 0 |R(σ)−R(σ0)| is the 3D Euclidean distance between two R2 det a¯ d2Φ is the area element of the mid-surface. The points on the sheet, ε is the dielectric constant, and ξ is out-of-plane bending energy density bend depends on Eelastic the Debye screening length, which depend on the solvent. b − b¯ We will study the regime h  ξ  W , where repulsion κ has a significant effect on the bending stiffness, but is still E bend = [(1 − ν)Tr(b − b¯)2 + νTr2(b − b¯)] (8) elastic 2 a short range force compared to the width and length of the sheet. stretch and the in-plane stretching energy, Eelastic depends sim- The electrostatic energy density Erep = hρ φ(σ) can be ilarly on a − a¯ with κ replaced by k, with stiffness written as an effective bending energy (App. E): 3 k ≡ hY and κ ≡ h Y , where h is the thickness of 8(1−ν2) 12(1−ν2) 2 2 3 the sheet, Y, ν are the Young’s modulus and Poisson ra- π h ρ ξ  2 2 Erepulsion = 2Tr(b ) − (Tr b) . (10) tio. It is worth pointing out that although the thickness 8 4πε scaling of the stretching and bending elastic energies are We neglected corrections to the stretching energy be- derived in the continuum limit, they represent a good cause in the thin sheet limit, the stretching and bend- approximation for an assembly of rigid NPs connected ing elastic energies are O(h) and O(h3) respectively, by soft ligands, as long as the curvature is not too large 2 whereas Eq. (10) is O(h ). Summing Erepulsion with and a continuous limit of the deformation field is well- E bend [Eq. (8)] gives the effective bending energy defined. The agreement with experimental results veri- elastic fied this continuum approach. A more detailed derivation bend κeff ¯ 2 2 ¯ E = [(1 − νeff )Tr(b − beff ) + νeff Tr (b − beff )] of this thin shell elastic energy can be found in App. D. eff 2 This mode of geometric frustration is similar to a num- (11) ber of problems in the literature on elasticity of twisted ribbons [52–56]. The minimization of this type of elastic where energy Eshell has analytic solutions in two limits [54–56]: elastic √ κ = κ + 2Q (12) “wide” ribbons (W  Rh) are stretching-dominated, eff so a ' a¯, and the solution is a cylindrical helical rib- κν − 2Q √ νeff = , (13) bon. “Narrow” ribbons (W  Rh) are bending- κ + 2Q dominated, so b ' b¯, and the solution is a helicoid. This and crossover comes from the competition between the bend- 5 4 ing energy, Ebend ∼ LW κ , and the stretching energy, π h2ρ2ξ3 2 2 Q ≡ (14) Estretch ∼ h · LW κ [54]. 8 4π Interestingly, the assembled ribbons observed in is the electric self-energy of a patch of size ξ on the Ref. [9]√ and experiments we perform in this paper have W > Rh, which may lead to the conclusion that they ribbon. Similar corrections to the elastic moduli were belong to the wide ribbon limit. However, the observed studied for charged fluid membranes in ionic solutions in ¯ morphologies are much closer to helicoids. As we analyze [57–60]. The correction to b affects its traceless part, ¯0 ¯ ¯ below, this is due to the bending stiffening effect of the bij = bij − Tr(b)δij/2, which obtains an overall factor electrostatic repulsion. `−1 ¯0 2 3 ¯0 b ρ ξ beff = , ` ∝ (15) V. BENDING STIFFENING FROM ` hε Y ELECTROSTATIC REPULSION up to numerical factors of order 1, while the trace part remains 0. In all realistic cases, NPs carry some charge from spon- Thus, the repulsion has two effects: it increases the taneous ionization of their surface and adsorptions of bending rigidity [Eq. (12)] and lowers the the curvature charged species from the media. Tetrahedral CdTe NPs of the reference metric [Eq. (15)]. These two effects are 7

FIG. 3. Comparing morphology of assemblies from experiment and theory. a, Experimental observation of helical assemblies of tetrahedral CdTe NPs. b, Helicoidal solution for the ribbon’s mid-surface obtained from the model. c, Linear prediction of the helicoid’s pitch on ξ, , h [Eq. (18)] (red line) fitted on the experimental data (black data points), where a = 4.5nm. related, as Q/κ ∼ `, so in the limit of strong repulsion, jecture that the longest dimension L of the thin-shell is `  1 and bending rigidity is dominated by repulsion. parallel to the RH-helices. We therefore cut a rectangular An important consequence of the correction is that region out of the Clifford torus with the long side L paral- the reference radius R of S3 is enlarged into `R. In this lel to θ and the short side W parallel to β (Fig. 2l). In the strong repulsion regime, the characteristic√ length scale limit of L  W the actual metric a needs to be indepen- for the bend-stretch crossover,√ `Rh, can exceed the dent of θ, so stress grows only in the width direction, min- imizing the energy. In the repulsion-controlled bending- physical width (W  `Rh), bringing a ribbon√ into the bending-dominated regime even when W > Rh. dominated regime, we impose the constraint b = b¯ and stretch The morphology of this regime is solved in Sec. VI. find the actual 2D metric aij by minimizing Eelastic (see Equation (15) gives that the critical charge density ρ App. F for more details): above which the self-assembly is bending-dominated is −3/2p 1 0 ρc = W ξ Y/a. a = cosh2 β . (16) ij 0 1

The embedding of the mid-surface, under free boundary conditions, is an RH helicoid (Fig. 3b) VI. HELICOIDAL MORPHOLOGY OF NANOPARTICLES ASSEMBLIES AND R(β, θ) = `R (sinh β cos θ, sinh β sin θ, θ) , (17) COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTS where R = φa is the radius of the 3-sphere, and a is the Without loss of generality, we describe an assembly edge length of the tetrahedra. Importantly, this RH he- of RH tetrahelices, with long axis aligned with θ. The licoid has the same chirality as the tetrahelices and the treatment of LH tetrahelices can be generated with mir- ligands. This prediction is consistent with the structures ror symmetry, as we discuss below. seen in Ref. [9], where high R ligand (D Cys) concentra- In the reference configuration, the RH helices are tion systematically leads to RH assemblies with nearly packed side by side across the direction β. The ligand’s perfect enantioselectivity. Similarly, for L ligands (L D-chirality favors the formation of long RH tetrahelices Cys), we exchange β ↔ θ which reverses the handed- while inter-helices bonds are more frustrated, so we con- ness of the tetrahelices, but leaves b¯ invariant. Imposing 8

∂βaij = 0 and minimizing Estretch, we find that now the range produced from the experiments (varying the pitch helicoidal solution must be LH (Fig. 3b). in the range 200nm−1600nm) (Fig. 4a), finding a mono- The pitch of the helicoid is given by tonic increase of the CD peak with the pitch (Fig. 4d), the linear part (at smaller pitch) of which agreeing with  ρ2ξ3  p = 2π`R = 2π R. (18) experiment (Fig. 4e). Importantly, the amplitude of the hε Y CD spectra is much higher than for typical biological molecules and the maximum located in the near-infrared Hence the repulsion between NPs is a crucial design pa- part of the spectrum suitable for biomedical imaging, re- rameter: the pitch can be tuned by the charge density ρ mote sensing, and information technologies. on the NPs, the screening length ξ via the control of ion concentration in the solution, and the solution’s dielectric constant ε. VII. CONCLUSIONS It is worth noting that we started from a rectangu- lar sheet of length L and width W , but the resulting pitch p is independent of L and W . This is true for the We present a non-Euclidean self-assembly theory for repulsion-controlled bending-dominated regime we dis- polyhedral NPs, which explains how complex ordered cussed above. In the intermediate regime where stretch- structures can be assembled from simple polyhedral NPs. ing and bending energies are comparable, p may depend We apply this theory to the geometrically frustrated self- on W , as discussed for the purely elastic case in Ref. [54]. assembly of tetrahedral NPs subject to chiral binding, In this experiment, the width of the helicoid is deter- and solved for helicoidal structures in agreement with mined by the competition between the binding energy experimental observations. We further show that electro- static repulsion between the NPs provides an important Ebind ∼ −bind × (hW L) and the (repulsion corrected) elastic energy of the ribbon, tuning parameter to control the final morphology. Although this theory focuses on the equilibrium mor-  W 4 phology, it also provides insight into the assembly’s ki- E ∼ Y × (hW L) × . (19) elastic+repulsion `R netic pathways. In particular, the translational symme- try of the 2D reference metric ¯a means that the assembly of these sheets is scalable: smaller pieces of the sheet can At equilibrium, ∂(Ebind +Eelastic+repulsion)/∂W = 0, giv- ing merge and form a larger sheet, giving the self-assembly process a high yield of the target structure. This scalabil- 1 1  2 3    4   4 ρ ξ ity refers to the connectivity of the assembly (topology of W ∼ bind `R ∼ bind R. (20) Y Y hε Y the contact network), instead of the morphology, which is are highly corporative ground states and depends on Because stress does not accumulate along the long axis the size of the cluster [19]. This scalability comes from of the helicoid, the length L is controlled by the kinetic the homogeneity of the reference metric, which is trans- processes of the assembly. lationally invariant across this sheet. As a result, how In experiments, twisted sheets were produced in a mix- an NP connects to its neighbors is the same at differ- ture of water and methanol, while concentration of Cad- ent places on the sheet, allowing smaller pieces to merge. mium ions was used to control the kinetic rate of the as- As they merge, the morphology adjusts as the cluster sembly. As discussed in App. A, ξ and ε depend on the grows, but the topology of the contact network remains concentration of ions and the water/methanol ratio. The the same. If instead the in-plane metric was not trans- predicted dependence of the pitch on ξ, h, ε [(18)] agrees lationally invariant, the local NP connectivity would be qualitatively with the experimental data (Fig. 3a,c). Ad- different in different locations, and the sheet could only ditionally, the measured thickness h of the ribbons is grow from one nucleation seed, which is much slower. much greater than a single tetrahedra (∼ 5nm in size). Interestingly, scalability is a trivial requirement for the This indicate that the assembled helices in the experi- assembly Euclidean crystals (as the metric is always flat ment consist of multiple layers of stacked these single- and homogeneous), but a very nontrivial condition for tetrahedral-thick helicoids. cutting substructures from non-Euclidean crystals. The The theory described above provides a strategy to ex- scalability of the metric greatly increases the yield, which perimentally tune the pitch of chiral helices by adjusting was also observed experimentally, and provides an impor- charge density, solvent properties, and curvature of the tant measure when this theory is applied to a new new reference metric, offering control of a range of physical self-assembly system. properties. By measuring the circular dichroism (CD) One interesting mechanism that naturally emerge in spectra of self-assembled helicoids in dispersions, we find this theory is the propagation of chirality from the molec- that water/methanol ratio induces different chiroptical ular scale (i.e., L- or D- Cys ligands on the NPs) to the responses at a range of wavelengths via its control of assembled helices at the micron scale. As pointed out the pitch (Fig. 4bc and App. A). We also numerically in the literature, chiral symmetry breaking mechanisms simulated circularly polarized light interacting with self- are highly nontrivial, and LH structures at the molecu- assembled helicoids with geometric parameters in the lar scale can lead to either LH or RH structures at larger 9

FIG. 4. Experimental and numerical results of CD spectra of assembled structures. a, Numerical simulation of helical ribbons irradiated with circularly polarized electromagnetic waves of varying wavelength. The CD spectra are shown for helices with pitch (p) varied between 200 nm and 1600 nm. b,c Experimental measurement of normalized CD of [LH in (b) and RH in (c)] helices of tetrahedral CdTe NPs at water/methanol ratios 1:2 - 1:6 where the yield of the helices is high. Helices of longer pitch, which occur at higher methanol, are studied using simulations (a,d). d,e Characteristic absorption/scattering peak wavelength plotted as function of the helical pitch, from numerical simulations (d) and experiments (e). length scales, depending on the binding mechanism and in our 3D Euclidean space. Generalization of this the- the direction [61, 62]. Here, the intrinsic chiral symmetry ory to more varieties of NPs, which exhibit tilings in breaking of binding tetrahedra into 1D tetrahelices [63] either spherical or hyperbolic space, as well as diverse provides a convenient channel for molecular scale chiral- ways in selecting slices from these non-Euclidean crys- ity to propagate to the micron scale, as we discussed. tals (e.g., clusters, tubes, shells, hierarchical structures), In addition, as observed in previous studies of geo- open a suite of intriguing new questions for future study. metrically frustrated systems, topological defects such as The new morphologies that will emerge, may lead to disclinations may arise, easing the stress at the expense of novel materials capabilities. Besides chiral optical re- losing local attraction [64]. Here, similarly, extra tetrahe- sponse in Fig. 4, the engineering of self-assembled struc- lices can be inserted as disclination lines in the 600-cell, tures in non-Euclidean space is applicable to realization increasing its radius R and decreasing its curvature. Un- of metamaterials with unique mechanical, acoustic, cat- der this consideration, the proposed continuum model, alytic, and biological properties. at a lower curvature of the reference metric, can also be viewed as a continuum limit of tetrahedra assemblies with a continuous distribution of disclinations. We ex- pect this to be a more realistic model of the experimen- tally observed morphologies, given their mesoscale size. We would like to also point out interesting relations ACKNOWLEDGMENTS between this work and the self-assembly of amphiphilic molecules and peptides into chiral ribbons [65–67]. Al- though the elastic energy of these molecular assemblies We thank S. Glotzer, Y. Lim, and P. Schoenhoefer for shares similarities with our theory, the origin of the twist helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by comes from chiral bonding between the molecules, which the Office of Naval Research (MURI N00014-20-1-2479, is intrinsically different from the geometrically frustrated J.L., N.A.K, K.S., and X.M.), the Department of De- polyhedral tiling we consider here. fense (Newton Award for Transformative Ideas during This theory opens a new design space for the self- the COVID-19 Pandemic, N.A.K and X.M.), National assembly of NPs, where shape and interaction of the NPs Science Foundation (NSF-EFRI-1741618, F.S., K.S., and are reflected in their ideal non-Euclidean crystal struc- X.M.), and Office of Naval Research for the Vannevar tures, which in turn inform us about the self-assembly Bush Faculty Fellowship (N.A.K). 10

Appendix A: Materials and methods 4. Characterization

1. Materials CD and extinction spectra were acquired using J-1700 CD spectrophotometers with a PMT detector and an L-Cys hydrochloride monohydrate, hydrochloric acid InGaAs NIR detector. All the spectra were measured (HCl) sodium hydroxide (NaOH), sulfuric acid (H2SO4, in a quartz cuvette with a light path of 10 mm. The 98%) and methanol were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich. zeta-potential were measured by Zetasizer Nano ZSP Cadmium perchlorate hexahydrate (Cd(ClO4)2 · 6H2O) (Malvern Instruments Ltd., GB). SEM images were taken was obtained from Alfa-Aesar. Aluminum telluride by FEI Nova 200 Nanolab Dual Beam SEM with an ac- (Al2Te3) was purchase from Materion Advanced Chem- celeration voltage of 5 kV and a current of 0.4 nA. For icals. All chemicals were used as received. Ultra- counting the geometrical parameters of the helices, the pure deionized water (18.2 MΩ) was used for all solution middle region of the helices was used for analysis and preparations. more than 50 helices were counted for each case.

2. Synthesis of CdTe NPs 5. Calculation of Debye screening length

The synthesis of CdTe NPs were according to previous The Debye screening length, ξ, was calculated using publications [68] with appropriate modifications. Briefly, s 0.985 g Cd(ClO ) · 6H O and 0.99 g Cysteine hydrochlo- ε ε kT 4 2 2 ξ = r 0 (A1) ride monohydrate were dissolved in 100 mL deionized wa- 2 P e NA i zici ter. The pH of the solution was adjusted to 11.2 with 1.0

M NaOH. The obtained solution was transferred into a where e is the elementary electric charge, NA is the Avo- th 250 mL three-neck round-bottomed flask and connected gadro’s number, zi is the charge number (valence) of i th to a 50 mL three-neck round-bottomed flask by tubes. component, ci is the molar concentration of i compo- The system was quickly purged with nitrogen for 30 min nent, εr is the relative electric permittivity of the elec- to remove all the oxygen in the glasses and solution. Then trolyte, ε0 is the electric permittivity of vacuum, k is 0.10 g Al2Te3 was added into the small flask and purged the Boltzmann constant, and T is the absolute temper- another 30 min to remove any possible oxygen in the ature. For 500 mL CdTe NPs solution before mixing system. 10 mL 0.50 M H2SO4 was quickly injected into with methanol, the ions in the solution were consisted of the small flask to react with Al2Te3 to generate H2Te Na+ (0.1635 M), Cl− (0.0851 M), Cd2+ (0.0275 M) and − gas, which was slowly purged into the reaction solution ClO4 (0.0315 M). After mixing with different volume of cadmium precursor by nitrogen flow. The reaction so- of methanol, the concentration of each ion was diluted lution was refluxed at 100 ◦C for 8 h to obtain CdTe NPs to different extents to get a series of Debye screening in a size of 4.5 ± 0.42 nm. The as-synthesized NPs need lengths. to be wrapped with Al foil and aged as least three days before further assembly behavior. 6. Dielectric constant of water/methanol mixtures

3. Self-assembly of CdTe NPs The dielectric constants of water/methanol mix- tures were according to Ref. [70], which summarized The self-assembly of CdTe NPs into helices with a se- a polynomial formula for the dielectric constant of ries of pitch lengths was referred to our recent publica- methanol/water mixtures with the percentage of water tions [9, 69] with appropriated modifications. Firstly, in the mixtures based on a series of reported dielectric 500 µL CdTe NPs with aging time beyond 3 days were values: mixed with 20 µL 0.10 M Cd(ClO4)2. The pH value of the mixed solution was adjusted to 8.0 with 1.0 M HCl. ε(x) = 32.91 + 0.208 x + 0.00246 x2 (A2) Then different volumes of methanol from 500 to 5000 µL were respectively added into the 500 µL above solution where x the molar fraction of water in methanol/water to initiate the self-assembly of CdTe NPs. The obtained mixtures. turbid solution was incubated at room temperature un- der light irradiation for 3 days to assembly NPs into he- lices. Afterwards, the assembled helices were centrifuged 7. FDTD Simulations at a speed of 6000 rpm for 3 min and dispersed in water to wash unassembled NPs by another 2 times’ centrifuga- The CD spectra for nanohelices with variable pitch tions in the same conditions as above. The obtained helix lengths were simulated with commercial software pack- was finally dispersed in water for further measurements age Lumerical FDTD Solutions. The size of nanohelices and characterizations. used for simulation were according to SEM images of the 11 assembly of L-CdTe under the water/methanol ratio of 10a (decagons) formed by shared edges of the tetrahe- 1 : 3, which generated a left-handed ribbon with a length, lices are associated to the 12 vertices of the icosahedron width, thickness and pitch of around 1200, 300, 100 and base, forming a discrete Hopf fibration (Fig. 5). These 600 nm. The pitch was varied from 200 to 1600 nm while rings are linked pairwise with Hopf link 1. At the same kept other geometric parameters the same. To study the time, each of the 20 tetrahelices corresponds to each of pitch effect on CD peak positions, the nanohelix was il- the 20 triangular faces of the base icosahedron. luminated by left/right-handed circularly polarized light (CPL) consisted by two total-field scattered-field (TFSF) sources with the same k−vector but with a phase dif- ference of ±90◦ for left/right-handed CPL, respectively. Two analysis groups consisted of a box of power moni- tor were used to calculate the absorption and scattering intensity, respectively. The CD spectra were recorded as the difference of the extinction under left/right-handed CPL. The simulation wavelengths were set in the range of 300 to 2000 nm. The refractive index for CdTe was ob- tained from the Sopra Material Database. The refractive index of water backgrounds was 1.33. The mesh size was 10 nm. The orientation of nanohelices were considered in the simulation. The nanohelices were placed in a paral- FIG. 5. The discrete Hopf fibration of the 600-cell. The base lel, perpendicular and 4π-averaged orientations [66, 69] in space is an icosahedron, and the fibers are non-intersecting comparison with the k-vector of incident photons, which decagons. show nanohelices under perpendicular orientation have a similar CD and extinction peak position with respect to The discrete Hopf fibration by an icosahedron and a the random orientation (Fig. 3 in the main text). decagon is a useful tool to visualize the packing of tetra- helices in the 600-cell (Fig. 2). For illustrative purposes, we align the icosahedron’s 5-fold symmetry axis along Appendix B: The 600-cell structure the z−direction. Let γ be the polar angle: γ = 0, π are the North and South poles of the icosahedron and the 10 In this appendix we discuss the structure of the 600- remaining vertices belong to two latitudes at the North cell, which is a “regular honeycomb” (i.e., a space-filling and South Tropics 3 packing of polyhedra) of tetrahedra on the 3-sphere S . π 1 Regular honeycombs can be classified by the Shl¨afli no- γ = ∓ arctan . (B3) N,S 2 2 tation {p, q, r} where q is the number of p−sided regular polygonal faces around a polyhedron’s vertex, and r is We start from γ = 0 and describe the order of the tetra- the number of polyhedra around an edge. Calling Θ the helices as we travel from the North to the South Pole dihedral angle of a polyhedron, when rΘ < (>)2π, the in the base icosahedron. At γ = 0 there is a chain of honeycomb has positive (negative) Gaussian curvature. 10 vertices, shared between 5 tetrahelices (one for each In this notation the 600-cell can be written as a {3, 3, 5} triangle on the base between γ = 0 and γ = γN). This tiling. It contains N0 = 120 vertices, N2 = 720 edges, means that close to the North pole, there are 5 tetrahe- N3 = 1200 faces and N3 = 600 tetrahedral cells. lices bundled perfectly around a common long edge. The Introducing Cartesian coordinates Xµ (µ = 1, ..., 4) in North pole maps to the axis of the bundle, while the 5 4 4D Euclidean space E (where the 3-sphere is embedded) vertices at γN map to the exposed corners of the 5 tetra- and choosing the origin at the center of the 3-sphere, the helices. The bundle has the topology of a solid torus, vertices of the 600-cell belong to the hypersurface because the tetrahelices are closed in rings of 10 tetrahe- dra. The 5 edges at γN map to the outer surface of the (X1)2 + (X2)2 + (X3)2 + (X4)2 = R2. (B1) torus, which contains 20 × 5 = 100 triangular tiles. For γN < γ ≤ γS, we encounter 10 tetrahelices ar- The radius R of the circumscribed sphere S3 is related ranged into a solid torus that wraps around the “polar to the edge length of the tetrahedra a via bundle” (Fig. 1h in the main text). In fact, there are 5 tetrahelices that coat the outer surface of the polar bun- R = φ a, (B2) dle, thus making a star-shaped torus with a cylindrical √ cavity inside and a zig-zag outer surface. The other 5 fit where φ = (1 + 5)/2 is the Golden Ratio. into the zig-zag surface thus completing the solid hollow The 600-cell can be organized in 20 close-packed tetra- torus. The surface exposed to the South pole has again helices measuring 30 tetrahedra in length [47]. The sym- 100 triangular tiles. The South pole bundle is identical metry group of the 600-cell organizes these tetrahelices to the one at the North pole, and wraps around the hol- on the icosahedron base, where 12 fiber rings of length low torus, covering its exposed surface. The 600-cell is 12 thus made of 3 nested solid tori, separated by 2 surfaces Appendix C: The reference metric from the 600-cell at γN,S. Importantly, there are two ways of constructing the discrete Hopf fibration, depending on whether the In this section we derive the reference metric g¯ of the tetrahelices wrap around each other with a right-handed ideal packing of tetrahedra from the 600-cell. or a left-handed rotation. The 4D tangent vectors to S3 associate with the coor- Following this discrete Hopf fibration, a continuous dinate Θµ = (α, β, γ) are polar-coordinate Θµ = (α, β, θ) can be introduced 1 ∂X(Θ) t = ≡ R−1∂ X(Θ) (C1) X1 = R cos α cos (θ − β) (B4a) µ R ∂Θµ µ 2 X = R cos α sin (θ − β) (B4b) where the factor of R−2 makes the tangent vectors di- X3 = R sin α cos (θ + β) (B4c) mensionless. The components of the metric tensor in the coordinates Eq. (B4) areg ¯ = t · t , X4 = R sin α sin (θ + β) (B4d) µν µ ν 1 0 0  ν 4 −2 where X are Cartesian coordinates of E , and α ∈ g¯µν = R ∂µX · ∂ν X = 0 1 − cos 2α . (C2) [0, π/2] and β ± θ ∈ [0, 2π[ are angles on S3. In this co- 0 − cos 2α 1 ordinate α correspond to the toroidal shells, and β and θ are aligned with the LH and RH tetrahelices. The metric is block-diagonal (¯gαβ =g ¯αθ = 0) so the The coordinates Eq. (B4) are related to the Hopf fi- α−axis is everywhere orthogonal to the β− and θ−axis. bration in a simple way. The icosahedral base mentioned Notice thatg ¯ij depends only on the coordinate α. Fixing in section B becomes the Base 2D sphere S2 of the Hopf α =const gives a 2D toroidal surface in S3. The metric fibration with latitude-longitude coordinates (γ = 2α, β). is constant on this surface. The line element is The decagonal fibers become 1D circles S1 parameterized 2 µ ν 2 µ ν by θ. d¯s =g ¯µν dx dx = R g¯µν dΘ dΘ Using this coordinate, the 120 vertices of the 600-cell = R2[dα2 + dθ2 − 2 cos 2α dθdβ + dβ2], (C3) are at: which can also be written as

1. The north pole of the base icosahedron generates a 2 2 2 i j fiber of 10 vertices d¯s = R [dα +g ¯ij(α)dΘ dΘ ], (C4) i 2πk where Θ = (β, θ). The 2-dimensional metric induced on α = 0, θ = , (B5) the toroidal surfaces at fixed α is 10  1 − cos 2α g¯ (α) = , (C5) where k = 0, ..., 9. ij − cos 2α 1

2. The north tropical latitude of the base icosahedron and it is constant once we fix α. We recall that we in- generates 50 vertices lying on a surface scribed the icosahedral base of the 600-cell in the base 2-sphere, and 2α is the latitude on the base S2. We π 1 1 2πm 2πk π will use 2α to label both the latitudes of the icosahe- α = − arctan , β = , θ = + , (B6) 2 4 2 2 5 10 10 dral base and of the continuous S base. For αN,S = π/4 ∓ 1/2 arctan(1/2) on the icosahedral base, we find where m = 0, ..., 4 and k = 0, ..., 9. two groups of 50 vertices arranged into a grid formed by the great circles along β and θ (see Fig. 6).√ The 3. The south tropical latitude of the base icosahedron angle between the red and black lines is arccos(1/ 5).

generates 50 vertices lying on a surface The surfaces ΣαN,S are separated by an angular distance ∆α = 2(αS −αN ). The surface α = π/4 which is equidis- π 1 1 2πm 2πk π tant from Σ is the Clifford torus and does not contain α = + arctan , β = +π, θ = + , (B7) αN,S 4 2 2 5 10 10 any vertex of the 600-cell. The coordinate grid (β, θ) is orthogonal on the surface of the Clifford torus (see where m = 0, ..., 4 and k = 0, ..., 9. Fig. 6). The Clifford torus is the mid-surface of a shell

whose upper and lower boundaries are ΣαN,S . 4. The south pole of the base icosahedron generates a The determinant ofg ¯ is detg ¯ = sin2 2α and the refer- fiber 10 vertices ence volume element is π 2πk 3p 3 3 α = , θ = , (B8) dV = R detg ¯ d Θ = (R sin 2α)dαdβdθ (C6) 2 10 The determinant ofg ¯ vanishes at α = 0, π/2 so the co- where k = 0, ..., 9. ordinate system (α, β, θ) is singular at the North and 13

this continuous theory as an approximation of the actual material, where hard tetrahedra are connected by soft ligands. By using this continuum theory, we homogenize the discrete materials into a continuous media, where the hard tetrahedra plus the ligands are approximated θ θ as spherical tetrahedra. β β This approximation is increasingly accurate in the limit of a/R → 0 where a is the edge length of the tetra- hedra and R is the radius of the 3-sphere. Although the crystalline 600-cell is not in this limit (a/R = φ−1 ∼ 0.618), we expect a continuous distribution of disclina- tions which greatly reduce this ratio. Sadoc showed that it is possible to preserve the topology of the fiber bundle and elongate the fibers at the same time, if one chooses specific disclinations that change the icosahedral base FIG. 6. (a) Group of 50 vertices (blue dots) on the toroidal into a non-regular polyhedron [47]. Since the α−helices surfaces ΣαN,S located at αN,S = π/4 ∓ 1/2 arctan(1/2) 3 are less dense than a tetrahedral self-assembly, in [47] the (stereographic projection in E ). The angle between√ the red 3 (θ) and black (β) curvilinear axis is arccos(1/ 5). Stero- tetrahelices were not closely packed. The radius of S ef- graphic projections are conformal (angles are preserved by fectively increases by introducing a density of defects, so the projection) so the angles visualized in this figure are the the curvature of the non-Euclidean crystal proportional same as we would see them inside S3. The distances between to 1/R2 decreases, making it more compatible with flat nodes in the grid are distorted by the projection. (b) The space. 3 Clifford torus (α = π/4) (stereographic projection in E ). The coordinate lines (β, θ) are orthogonal here. There are no vertices of the 600-cell on the Clifford torus. Appendix D: Thin shell expansion of the elastic energy South pole of the base icosahedron. The singularities are analogous to the spherical coordinate system on the As we discussed in the main text, the geometric frus- 2-dimensional sphere S2: at the North and South pole tration of the elastic energy leads to stresses as the crystal the tangent vectors tβ and tθ are parallel. In fact, at grows in the 3D Euclidean space. This suggests that self- α = 0 the coordinates parametrize a 1-dimensional cir- assembly favors thin sheets over thick bulk structures, cle X = R(cos θ, sin θ, 0, 0) rather than a 2D surface. which balances the surface tension and the elastic energy. At the South Pole (α = π/2), the embedding becomes In order to find the actual configuration of a thin as- X = R(0, 0, cos(θ + β), sin(θ + β)) that is again a great sembly, we must minimize the elastic energy over a thin ¯ 3 circle Cπ/2 covered twice by β + θ ∈ [0, 4π]. We fixed region M of S . As discussed in the main text, we se- β = 0 to avoid the double-covering of Cπ/2. lect a toroidal surface X0(β, θ) ≡ X(α0, β, θ) at a fixed Figure 5 shows the grid formed by the curvilinear axis α = α0, and construct a sequence of toroidal surfaces θ (red lines) and θ (black lines) on the surface of a torus. around it varying α ∈ [α0 − h/(2R), α0 + h/(2R)]. This In order to draw the tetrahelices, we should connect these region is the reference configuration of a 3D self-assembly vertices with the ones on the neighboring toroidal shell. of dimensions h × L × W . When the scales h  W, L are The tetrahelices that are aligned with the red lines are well separated, we call it a thin sheet. Although the co- 3 R, and those that are aligned with the black lines are L. ordinates β, θ ∈ [0, 2π] in S , they are not bounded by Thus the 600-cell is composed by two bundles of tetrahe- these limits in this sheet, as they now have the topology lices linked pairwise: one contains only RH helices, the of an open sheet, not a torus, as we discussed in the main other only LH helices (see e.g. Fig. 2f). text. It is worth noting that the 600-cell of flat tetrahedra is The material is not uniform across its thickness, so it faceted: the interior of the tetrahedra is flat, while edges is analogous to an elastic thin shell rather than a thin carry positive Gaussian curvature. The coordinate we plate [51]. We define the thickness parameter introduced above is a coordinate of the 3-sphere S3 that circumscribes the 600-cell. This is analogous to using the t ≡ R(α − α0) (D1) spherical coordinate of the 2-sphere for the circumscribed icosahedron: all vertices lie on the 2-sphere, but the inte- with dimensions of length, and expandg ¯ij(α) around α = rior of the triangles are flat and not on the 2-sphere. As α0 an elasticity theory we build here for the self-assembly ¯ 2 3 problem, this continuous coordinate ignores the flatness g¯ij(t) =a ¯ij − 2tbij + t c¯ij + o(t ) (D2) of the tetrahedra themselves, and approximate the geo- ¯ metric frustration by a homogeneous curvature. We view The constant tensorsa ¯ij and bij are the first and second 14 fundamental form of the mid-surface: The elastic tensor, with indices restricted to the direc- tions on the surface is −2 a¯ij = R ∂iX0 · ∂jX0, Y ¯b = R−3∂ ∂ X · ∂ N , Aijkl(α, β, θ) = νg¯ijg¯kl + (1 − ν)¯gikg¯jl
. (D7) ij i j 0 j 0 1 − ν2 mn¯ ¯ ¯m¯ c¯ij =a ¯ bimbjn = bi bmj (D3) The total elastic energy of the shell can then be written where N0 is the normal vector to the X0 mid-surface. in the form The coordinate expression ofa ¯ , ¯b is ij ij W L 1 Z 2R Z 2R √ Eshell ≡ dβ dθ deta ¯ . (D8)  1 − cos 2α  Eshell 0 2 − W − L a¯ij = 2R 2R − cos 2α0 1 sin 2α  0 −1 The elastic energy density E , which now only depends ¯b = 0 (D4) ij R −1 0 on (β, θ), is   2 Z h/2R −2 1 1 shell andc ¯ij = R cos 2α0 . The reference area ele- E ≡ √ dt E (α0 + t, β, θ) (D9) 1 0 deta ¯ −h/2R ment is where the pre-factor in front of the integral is a conven- √ R2 sin 2α dS = R2 deta ¯ dβdθ = 0 dβdθ, (D5) tion. 2 Next, we expand the elastic tensor, the strain tensor and the area element in Eq. (D6) to second order in t which is positive for α ∈ [0, π/2]. The area element is 0 and integrate over t. Since the integration in Eq. (D9) zero at the poles of the base 2-sphere, where 2α = 0, π. 0 is symmetric around t = 0, the terms of (α + t, β, θ) The geometric frustration manifests in the fact that ¯a and E 0 linear in t integrate to zero. Thus, we are left with terms b¯ are incompatible in a surface embedded in Euclidean of O(1) and O(t2) in , which after integration, leads to space because det b¯/ det ¯a = −1/R2, while K(¯a) = 0, E an elastic energy Eshell = Estretch + Ebend, with violating Gauss’ Theorema Egregium. We follow the Kirchhoff-Love assumption for thin sheet Y h Z elasticity [42, 71, 72], namely that the shell is in a state of Estretch = dA[νTr2(a − a¯) 8(1 − ν2) ¯ plane-stress and the normal direction of the mid-surface M 2 in the reference metric stay as the normal direction of the + (1 − ν)Tr(a − a¯) ], mid-surface in the actual metric. In this case, the elastic 3 Z bend Y h 2 ¯ energy reduces to E = 2 dA[νTr (b − b) 12(1 − ν ) M¯ ¯ 2 1 3p ijkl + (1 − ν)Tr(b − b) ], (D10) E (α, β, θ) = R detg ¯ij A (gij − g¯kl)(gij − g¯kl). 8 (D6) proving Eq. (7) in the main text.

Appendix E: Short-range repulsion and its correction to bending energy

In this section we derive the energy associated with electrostatic repulsion of the assembled sheets. The electrostatic repulsion energy of a 2D sheet can be written as Z √ 2 Erepulsion = gd σρ(σ)φ(σ) (E1) M¯ where σ is the 2D coordinate of the sheet, ρ(σ) and φ(σ) are the charge density and electric potential at σ, and g is the metric. Assuming that the surface is uniformly charged with charge Q and charge density ρ = Q/Area[Σ], we have 2 2 Z Z 0 h ρ √ 2 √ 2 0 exp (−|R(σ) − R(σ )|/ξ) Erepulsion = g d σ g d σ 0 , (E2) 4π M¯ M¯ |R(σ) − R(σ )| where  is the dielectric constant, and ξ is the screening length. In order to simplify this repulsion energy into a local form, we can describe the sheet using the Monge parametriza- tion, assuming the sheet is locally nearly flat. To this end, we take a plane Π external to M¯ , we choose two orthogonal coordinates (x, y) on Π, and a z direction, orthogonal to Π. The surface M¯ is embedded as R(x, y) = (x, y, f(x, y)). (E3) 15

Using this representation in Eq. (E2), expanding both the distance and the metric, and integrate over the area of the short-range repulsion, we arrive at 2 2 3 Z  q π h ρ ξ 2 2 2 2 2 Erepulsion = (fxx + fyy) − 4(fxxfyy − fxy) 1 + fx + fy d x0. (E4) 8 4π Σ The energy density in Eq. (E4) from short-ranged repulsion is: 2 2 3 π h ρ ξ 2 2 Erepulsion = [(fxx + fyy) − 4(fxxfyy − fxy) ]. (E5) 8 4π Here the first term is (Trb)2 and the second is det b. Using Tr(b2) = (Trb)2−2 det b (valid for Monge parametrization) we rewrite 2 2 3 2 2 π h ρ ξ Erepulsion = Q[−(Tr b) + 2Tr(b )],Q ≡ . (E6) 8 4π The elastic part of the bending energy density is [Eqs. (8) and (D10)] κ h3Y E bend = [νTr2(b − b¯) + (1 − ν)Tr(b − b¯)2] where κ = . (E7) elastic 2 12(1 − ν2) The total energy density from elastic bending energy and repulsion energy is then bend bend Eeff = Eelastic + Erepulsion (E8) Summing the two energy densities and using linearity of the trace on sums of matrices i.e. Tr(b − b¯)2 = Tr(b2) + Tr(b¯2) − 2Tr(b · b¯) etc, we find 1 1 E bend = (κν − 2Q)(Tr b)2 + (κ(1 − ν) + 4Q)Tr(b2) (E9) eff 2 2 − νκ(Trb)(Trb¯) − κ(1 − ν)Tr(b · b¯) + ... where the remaining terms are constants containing the trace of b¯. The terms can be rearranged in the form of a bending energy:

bend κeff 2 2 E = [νeff Tr (b − b¯eff ) + (1 − νeff )Tr(b − b¯eff ) ], (E10) eff 2 with

κeff = κ + 2Q (E11) κν − 2Q ν = (E12) eff κ + 2Q and κ(1 − ν) + 2Q 2Q ¯b = ¯b + ¯b (E13) eff,xx κ(1 − ν) + 4Q xx κ(1 − ν) + 4Q yy 2Q κ(1 − ν) + 2Q ¯b = ¯b + ¯b (E14) eff,yy κ(1 − ν) + 4Q xx κ(1 − ν) + 4Q yy κ(1 − ν) ¯b = ¯b (E15) eff,xy κ(1 − ν) + 4Q xy

The new reference curvature satisfies Tr b¯eff = Tr b¯=0. Only the traceless part of the reference curvature is changed, increasing the reference radius of curvature from the 600-cell radius. In the limit of Q  κ, this change takes the form of Eq. (15) in the main text.

Appendix F: Morphology of the ribbon in the bending dominated limit

In this section we study the solutions to the equilibrium problem δE = 0 where the energy is the sum of the bend stretch elastic and the repulsion parts, E =√Eeff + Erepulsion. We take the assumption that Eeff = 0 so δE = δE . This is accurate in the limit W  `Rh where R is the repulsion corrected radius of curvature of the reference metric, h is the thickness, and ` is the dimensionless constant characterizing the ratio between the repulsion and the elasticity strength (defined in the main text). Because of the repulsion corrections, this limit is satisfied for the ribbons assembled in the experiment. 16

1. Solving for the actual metric and the morphology

As mentioned in the main text, we take the mid-surface of the shell on the Clifford torus at α = π/4. The reference first and second fundamental forms of the shell are Eq. (D4) evaluated at α = π/4 and with the correction from repulsion:

1 0 1  0 −1 ¯a(β, θ) = , b¯ (β, θ) = . (F1) 0 1 eff `R −1 0 In the discussions below we will drop the “eff” for convenience. The coordinate θ runs along great circles circumscribed to right-handed tetrahelices. As we discussed in the main text, we take the actual metric a to be translationally invariant along θ direction, which is the direction along these tetrahelices. The metric Ansatz is then a function of β:

E(β) F (β) a(β) = . (F2) F (β) G(β)

In the bending-dominated limit, the bending energy vanishes iff b = b¯, where b¯ is written in Eq. (F1). Then, a(β) ¯ is the 1st fundamental form of a surface R(β, θ) with normal vector N and second fundamental form N · ∂i∂jR = bij iff it satisfies the Gaussi-Codazzi-Peterson-Mainardi (GCPM) equations [73] ¯ ¯ ¯ 1 ¯ 2 1 2 ¯ ∂2b11 − ∂1b12 = b11Γ12 + b11(Γ12 − Γ11) − Γ11b22 (F3a) ¯ ¯ ¯ 1 ¯ 2 1 2 ¯ ∂2b21 − ∂1b22 = b11Γ22 + b11(Γ22 − Γ12) − Γ12b22 (F3b) and the Gauss equation

det b¯ 1 = − (∂ Γ2 − ∂ Γ2 + Γ1 Γ2 + Γ2 Γ2 − Γ2 Γ2 − Γ1 Γ2 ) (F4) det a E 2 12 1 11 12 11 12 12 11 22 11 12

i where Γjk are the Christoffell symbols: 1 Γk = akm(∂ a + ∂ a − ∂ a ), (F5) ij 2 i mj j mi m ij and where we defined x1 = β and x2 = θ to keep the notation simple. The explicit expressions of the Christoffel symbols are: GE − 2FF FE − 2EF Γ1 = ,β ,β Γ2 = − ,β ,β (F6a) 11 2 det a 11 2 det a FG EG Γ1 = ,β Γ2 = − ,β (F6b) 12 2 det a 12 2 det a GG FG Γ1 = ,β Γ2 = − ,β (F6c) 22 2 det a 22 2 det a where we indicated partial differentiation with a comma symbol. Using the expression of b¯ and Eq. (F6) in Eq. (F3), the GCPM equations reduce to FE ,β = 0 (F7) F 2 − EG EG − GE − 2FF ,β ,β ,β = 0. (F8) F 2 − EG

From the first equation, we either have E(β) = E0 = const or F = 0. In the former case, we cannot satisfy the second equation so the only non-trivial solution is F = 0, leading to a diagonal metric. Then, from the second equation we find EG,β = GE,β, i.e. E(β) = cG(β), c = const . (F9)

Using Eq. (F9), the expression of b¯ and det a = EG − F 2 in Eq. (F4) the Gauss equation reduces to a differential equation for G:

c GG,ββ − 2G − c GG,β = 0, (F10) 17 with solution    2   c1 c1β c1 c1β G(β) = 4 exp + exp − . (F11) c2 2 c2 2 Using this result in Eq. (F2) the Ansatz reduces to    2     c1 c1β c1 c1β c 0 a(β) = 4 exp + exp − . (F12) c2 2 c2 2 0 1

−8 −2 −2c1β 2 c1β 4 The determinant of a is det a = c c1 c2 e (c1 + c2e ) , so we find that c > 0. The stretching energy density of the final ansatz Eq. (F12) can be computed from the elastic strain tensor: 1  = (a (β) − δ ). (F13) ij 2 ij ij √ Since β is the width direction, we suppose W small compared to Rh and expand the stretching energy density 5 to order β . Then, we integrate over the width to find the total stretching energy Estretch(c, c1, c2) that depends parmetrically on the integration constants c, c1, c2. The expressions are long and not illuminating. The condition of stationarity of Estretch(c, c1, c2) reduces to 2 equations in 3 unknowns: 2 2 2 2 4 2 (c1 + c2)[(1 + c + 2cν)(c2 + 2c1c2) + c1(1 + c − c(c2(1 + ν) − 2ν) − c2(2 + ν))] = 0 (F14a) 2 2 2 4 (c1 + c2)[2c1c2(c + ν) + c2(c + ν) + c1(c + ν − c2(1 + ν))] = 0 (F14b) 2 One solution is c2 = −c1 for all c. The other is c2 q c = 1 , c = 1 (c2 − 2 − c c2 − 4) . (F15) 2 2 1 1 1 Using Eq. (F15) in Eq. (F12), we can compute the stress k σij = 2µ ij + λk δij (F16) and impose a vanishing stress at the boundary (free BC) σ11(W ) = 0 to fix the parameter c1. The result is s √ √ 1 1 − 2W 2 c = − 2 1 + − . (F17) 1 W 2 W 2 √ Since W/ `Rh is small, we formally expand a in W and keep only the lowest order: cosh2 β 0  a(β) = + o(W/R) (F18) 0 cosh2 β where the linear correction is − cosh β sinh βδij. We could solve the Weingarten equations to find the surface corre- sponding to the actual metric Eq. (F18) and the off-diagonal 2nd fundamental form in Eq. (F1). More simply, we observe that the mean curvature vanishes (H ∼ Tr(b¯) = 0) so the solution must be a minimal surface. Moreover, the second fundamental form is off-diagonal, so the surface has pure torsion and zero bending: it is a ruled surface generated by the rotation of a straight line around a curve. Finally, the Gaussian curvature of the surface is negative: det b¯/det a = −1/(`2R2 cosh4 β). The solution is an helicoid with embedding R(β, θ) = `R(sinh θ cos β, sinh θ sin β, β). (F19)

The solution is a Right-handed helicoid. We can check that the first fundamental form aij = ∂iR · ∂jR is Eq. (F18). The second fundamental form of the helicoid is bij = N · ∂i∂jR. By explicit calculation of the unit normal vector ∂ R × ∂ N N = β θ , (F20) |∂βR × ∂θN| we can verify that b = b¯. Notice that the positive sign in front of the third component of the embedding R3 = β in Eq. (F19) determines the handedness of the solution. To summarize: • We start from a crystal of right-handed tetrahelices, which are aligned with the θ direction of the coordinates • The actual metric is taken to be translationally invariant along θ, the long direction of the ribbons, due to the chiral symmetry breaking of the tetrahelices self-assembly pathway and energy minimization in the limit of L  W • We minimize the elastic energy in the bending-dominated limit with free boundary conditions, finding an helicoid of the same handedness as the tetrahelices. 18

2. Tetrahelix handedness determines the helicoid’s handedness

In the previous subsection we studied how right-handed tetrahelices may self-assemble into a right-handed thin shell. We can analyze a thin shell of left-handed tetrahelices by interchanging β with θ. The reference metric ¯g (and therefore ¯a and b¯) is invariant under this transformation. Let us call SR the right-handed helicoid and SL the helicoid obtained by exchanging β and θ. Let (aR, bR) and (aL, bL) be their respective 1st and 2nd fundamental forms. If the normal to SR is NR (see Eq. (F20)) then the normal to SL is −NR. The reason is that the order of the tangent L vectors ∂βR and ∂θR is exchanged under θ ↔ β. Consequently, the 2nd fundamental form of SL (bij = NL · ∂i∂jRL) is −bR. The solution must satisfy bL = b¯L. But b¯L = b¯R. In order to compensate for the minus sign, we have to reflect the coordinates of E3, e.g. by reflecting R3 → −R3, so the embedding is a Left-handed helicoid:

RL(β, θ) = `R(sinh β cos θ, sinh β sin θ, −θ). (F21)

This predicts that tetrahelices and self-assembled thin shells must have the same handedness. The right- and left- handed solutions have the same energy. The symmetry is broken by the chiral ligands: right- (left-) handed ligands can induce the formation of enantiopure right- (left-) handed tetrahelices, and eventually select the chirality of the thin shell. This corresponence between chiralities is indeed observed in the experiments. Notice that we defined the handedness of the helicoid with respect to its long axis. The helicoid twists with the opposite sense of rotation around a short axis (perpendicular to the length direction).

[1] Pablo F. Damasceno, Michael Engel, and Sharon C. ing Mao, and Nicholas A Kotov, “Self-assembly of chi- Glotzer, “Predictive self-assembly of polyhedra into com- ral nanoparticles into semiconductor helices with tunable plex structures,” Science 337, 453–457 (2012). near-infrared optical activity,” Chemistry of Materials [2] Helmut C¨olfenand Stephen Mann, “Higher-order orga- 32, 476–488 (2019). nization by mesoscale self-assembly and transformation [10] Wenfeng Jiang, Zhi-bei Qu, Prashant Kumar, Drew Vec- of hybrid nanostructures,” Angewandte Chemie Interna- chio, Yuefei Wang, Yu Ma, Joong Hwan Bahng, Kalil tional Edition 42, 2350–2365 (2003). Bernardino, Weverson R. Gomes, Felippe M. Colombari, [3] Shu-Hong Yu, Helmut C¨olfen,Klaus Tauer, and Markus Asdrubal Lozada-Blanco, Michael Veksler, Emanuele Antonietti, “Tectonic arrangement of baco 3 nanocrys- Marino, Alex Simon, Christopher Murray, S´ergioRicardo tals into helices induced by a racemic block copolymer,” Muniz, Andr´eF. de Moura, and Nicholas A. Kotov, Nature materials 4, 51–55 (2005). “Emergence of complexity in hierarchically organized chi- [4] Yihan Zhu, Jiating He, Cheng Shang, Xiaohe Miao, Jian- ral particles,” 368, 642–648 (2020). feng Huang, Zhipan Liu, Hongyu Chen, and Yu Han, [11] Kerong Deng, Zhishan Luo, Li Tan, and Zewei Quan, “Chiral gold nanowires with boerdijk–coxeter–bernal “Self-assembly of anisotropic nanoparticles into func- structure,” Journal of the American Chemical Society tional superstructures,” Chemical Society Reviews 49, 136, 12746–12752 (2014). 6002–6038 (2020). [5] Joong Hwan Bahng, Bongjun Yeom, Yichun Wang, [12] Carlos A Silvera Batista, Ronald G Larson, and Siu On Tung, J Damon Hoff, and Nicholas Kotov, Nicholas A Kotov, “Nonadditivity of nanoparticle inter- “Anomalous dispersions of ‘hedgehog’ particles,” Nature actions,” Science 350 (2015). 517, 596–599 (2015). [13] Michael A Boles, Michael Engel, and Dmitri V Ta- [6] Wenge Jiang, Michael S Pacella, Dimitra Athanasiadou, lapin, “Self-assembly of colloidal nanocrystals: From in- Valentin Nelea, Hojatollah Vali, Robert M Hazen, Jef- tricate structures to functional materials,” Chemical re- frey J Gray, and Marc D McKee, “Chiral acidic amino views 116, 11220–11289 (2016). acids induce chiral hierarchical structure in calcium car- [14] Jungwon Park, Hans Elmlund, Peter Ercius, Jong Min bonate,” Nature communications 8, 1–13 (2017). Yuk, David T Limmer, Qian Chen, Kwanpyo Kim, [7] Ming Yang, Henry Chan, Gongpu Zhao, Joong Hwan Sang Hoon Han, David A Weitz, Alex Zettl, et al., “3d Bahng, Peijun Zhang, Petr Kr´al, and Nicholas A Kotov, structure of individual nanocrystals in solution by elec- “Self-assembly of nanoparticles into biomimetic capsid- tron microscopy,” Science 349, 290–295 (2015). like nanoshells,” Nature Chemistry 9, 287–294 (2017). [15] Zihao Ou, Ziwei Wang, Binbin Luo, Erik Luijten, and [8] Yasutaka Nagaoka, Rui Tan, Ruipeng Li, Hua Zhu, Den- Qian Chen, “Kinetic pathways of crystallization at the nis Eggert, Yimin A Wu, Yuzi Liu, Zhongwu Wang, nanoscale,” Nature materials 19, 450–455 (2020). and Ou Chen, “Superstructures generated from trun- [16] H. S. M. Coxeter, Regular polytopes (Dover, New York, cated tetrahedral quantum dots,” Nature 561, 378–382 1973). (2018). [17] Jean-Fran¸cois Sadoc and R´emy Mosseri, Geometrical [9] Jiao Yan, Wenchun Feng, Ji-Young Kim, Jun Lu, frustration (Cambridge University Press, 2006). Prashant Kumar, Zhengzhi Mu, Xiaochun Wu, Xiaom- [18] William TM Irvine, Vincenzo Vitelli, and Paul M 19

Chaikin, “Pleats in crystals on curved surfaces,” Nature Alex Travesset, “Many body effects and icosahedral or- 468, 947–951 (2010). der in superlattice self-assembly,” Journal of the Amer- [19] Gregory M Grason, “Perspective: Geometrically frus- ican Chemical Society 140, 8236–8245 (2018), pMID: trated assemblies,” The Journal of Chemical Physics 29905064, https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.8b03895. 145, 110901 (2016). [39] Jean-Fran¸coisSadoc, R´emy Mosseri, and Jonathan V [20] Martin Lenz and Thomas A Witten, “Geometrical frus- Selinger, “Liquid crystal director fields in three- tration yields fibre formation in self-assembly,” Nature dimensional non-euclidean geometries,” New Journal of physics 13, 1100–1104 (2017). Physics 22, 093036 (2020). [21] Asaf Haddad, Hillel Aharoni, Eran Sharon, Alexander G [40] Jonathan V Selinger, “Director deformations, geomet- Shtukenberg, Bart Kahr, and Efi Efrati, “Twist renor- ric frustration, and modulated phases in liquid crystals,” malization in molecular crystals driven by geometric frus- arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03803 (2021). tration,” Soft matter 15, 116–126 (2019). [41] Jacob JK Kirkensgaard, Myfanwy E Evans, Liliana [22] Chao Li, Alexander G Shtukenberg, Leslie Vogt- De Campo, and Stephen T Hyde, “Hierarchical self- Maranto, Efi Efrati, Paolo Raiteri, Julian D Gale, An- assembly of a striped gyroid formed by threaded chi- drew L Rohl, and Bart Kahr, “Why are some crystals ral mesoscale networks,” Proceedings of the National straight?” The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 124, Academy of Sciences 111, 1271–1276 (2014). 15616–15624 (2020). [42] Efi Efrati, Eran Sharon, and Raz Kupferman, “Elastic [23] Snir Meiri and Efi Efrati, “Cumulative geometric theory of unconstrained non-euclidean plates,” Journal of frustration in physical assemblies,” arXiv preprint the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 57, 762–775 (2009). arXiv:2101.09816 (2021). [43] Zhiyong Tang, Nicholas A. Kotov, and Michael Gier- [24] Yunsheng Xia, Trung Dac Nguyen, Ming Yang, sig, “Spontaneous organization of single cdte nanoparti- Byeongdu Lee, Aaron Santos, Paul Podsiadlo, Zhiy- cles into luminescent nanowires,” Science 297, 237–240 ong Tang, Sharon C Glotzer, and Nicholas A Kotov, (2002). “Self-assembly of self-limiting monodisperse supraparti- [44] Sangmin Lee, Erin G Teich, Michael Engel, and cles from polydisperse nanoparticles,” Nature nanotech- Sharon C Glotzer, “Entropic colloidal crystallization nology 6, 580–587 (2011). pathways via fluid–fluid transitions and multidimen- [25] Maurice Kl´eman,“Curved crystals, defects and disor- sional prenucleation motifs,” Proceedings of the National der,” Advances in Physics 38, 605–667 (1989). Academy of Sciences 116, 14843–14851 (2019). [26] FC t Frank and JS Kasper, “Complex alloy structures [45] Douglas M Hall, Isaac R Bruss, Justin R Barone, and regarded as sphere packings. i. definitions and basic prin- Gregory M Grason, “Morphology selection via geometric ciples,” Acta Crystallographica 11, 184–190 (1958). frustration in chiral filament bundles,” Nature materials [27] FC t Frank and JS Kasper, “Complex alloy structures 15, 727–732 (2016). regarded as sphere packings. ii. analysis and classification [46] John Desmond Bernal, “The bakerian lecture, 1962. the of representative structures,” Acta Crystallographica 12, structure of liquids,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of 483–499 (1959). London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences [28] David R Nelson, “Liquids and glasses in spaces of incom- 280, 299–322 (1964). mensurate curvature,” Physical Review Letters 50, 982 [47] J. F. Sadoc, “Helices and helix packings derived from the (1983). {3, 3, 5} polytope,” The European Physical Journal E 5, [29] David R. Nelson, “Order, frustration, and defects in liq- 575–582 (2001). uids and glasses,” Phys. Rev. B 28, 5515–5535 (1983). [48] Heinz Hopf, “Uber¨ die abbildungen der dreidimension- [30] R Mosseri and JF Sadoc, “Hierarchical structure of de- alen sph¨areauf die kugelfl¨ache,” Mathematische Annalen fects in non-crystalline sphere packings,” Journal de 104, 637–665 (1931). Physique Lettres 45, 827–832 (1984). [49] H. K. Urbantke, “The Hopf fibration—seven times in [31] Joseph P. Straley, “Crystallization in curved three- physics,” Journal of Geometry and Physics 46, 125–150 dimensional space,” Phys. Rev. B 30, 6592–6595 (1984). (2003). [32] James P. Sethna, “Frustration, curvature, and defect [50] Luigi Bianchi, “Sulle superficie a curvatura nulla in ge- lines in metallic glasses and the cholesteric blue phase,” ometria ellittica,” Annali di Matematica Pura ed Appli- Phys. Rev. B 31, 6278–6297 (1985). cata (1867-1897) 24, 93–129 (1896). [33] James P. Sethna, David C. Wright, and N. D. Mermin, [51] L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, A.M. Kosevich, J.B. Sykes, “Relieving cholesteric frustration: The blue phase in a L.P. Pitaevskii, and W.H. Reid, Theory of Elasticity, curved space,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 467–470 (1983). Course of theoretical physics, Vol. 7 (Elsevier Science , [34] Bryan Gin-ge Chen, Paul J. Ackerman, Gareth P. 1986). Alexander, Randall D. Kamien, and Ivan I. Smalyukh, [52] Robin L. B. Selinger, Jonathan V. Selinger, Anthony P. “Generating the hopf fibration experimentally in nematic Malanoski, and Joel M. Schnur, “Shape selection in chi- liquid crystals,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 237801 (2013). ral self-assembly,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 158103 (2004). [35] Carl D Modes and Randall D Kamien, “Hard disks on [53] Rouzbeh Ghafouri and Robijn Bruinsma, “Helicoid to the hyperbolic plane,” Physical review letters 99, 235701 spiral ribbon transition,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 138101 (2007). (2005). [36] Carl D Modes and Randall D Kamien, “Spherical foams [54] Shahaf Armon, Efi Efrati, Raz Kupferman, and Eran in flat space,” Soft Matter 9, 11078–11084 (2013). Sharon, “Geometry and mechanics in the opening of chi- [37] Alex Travesset, “Nanoparticle superlattices as quasi- ral seed pods,” Science 333, 1726–1730 (2011). frank-kasper phases,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 115701 [55] Shahaf Armon, Hillel Aharoni, Michael Moshe, and (2017). Eran Sharon, “Shape selection in chiral ribbons: from [38] Tommy Waltmann, Curt Waltmann, Nathan Horst, and 20

seed pods to supramolecular assemblies,” Soft Matter 10, Nature 399, 566–569 (1999). 2733–2740 (2014). [66] Lior Ziserman, Amram Mor, Daniel Harries, and Dganit [56] Z. Chen, C. Majidi, D. J. Srolovitz, and M. Haataja, Danino, “Curvature instability in a chiral amphiphile “Tunable helical ribbons,” Applied Physics Letters 98, self-assembly,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 238105 (2011). 011906 (2011). [67] A. Aggeli, I. A. Nyrkova, M. Bell, R. Harding, L. Car- [57] M. Winterhalter and W. Helfrich, “Effect of surface rick, T. C. B. McLeish, A. N. Semenov, and N. Boden, charge on the curvature elasticity of membranes,” The “Hierarchical self-assembly of chiral rod-like molecules as Journal of Physical Chemistry 92, 6865–6867 (1988). a model for peptide β-sheet tapes, ribbons, fibrils, and [58] Bertrand Duplantier, Raymond E. Goldstein, Victor fibers,” 98, 11857–11862 (2001). Romero-Rochn, and Adriana I. Pesci, “Geometrical and [68] Nikolai Gaponik, Dmitri V. Talapin, Andrey L. Ro- topological aspects of electric double layers near curved gach, Kathrin Hoppe, Elena V. Shevchenko, Andreas surfaces,” Physical Review Letters 65, 508–511 (1990). Kornowski, Alexander Eychm¨uller, and Horst Weller, [59] P. Pincus, J. F. Joanny, and D. Andelman, “Electro- “Thiol-capping of cdte nanocrystals:an alternative to static interactions, curvature elasticity, and steric repul- organometallic synthetic routes,” The Journal of Phys- sion in multimembrane systems,” EPL (Europhysics Let- ical Chemistry B 106, 7177–7185 (2002). ters) 11, 763 (1990). [69] Wenchun Feng, Ji-Young Kim, Xinzhi Wang, Heather A. [60] Jeremy Schmit, Rebecca Menes, and Philip A. Pincus, Calcaterra, Zhibei Qu, Louisa Meshi, and Nicholas A. “Dielectric-induced counterion partitioning and its effect Kotov, “Assembly of mesoscale helices with near-unity on membrane rigidity,” Physical Review E 66, 061502 enantiomeric excess and light-matter interactions for chi- (2002). ral semiconductors,” Science Advances 3 (2017). [61] A. B. Harris, Randall D. Kamien, and T. C. Lubensky, [70] Kyril M. Solntsev, Dan Huppert, Noam Agmon, “Molecular chirality and chiral parameters,” Rev. Mod. and Laren M. Tolbert, “Photochemistry of “su- Phys. 71, 1745–1757 (1999). per” photoacids. 2. excited-state proton transfer in [62] Efi Efrati and William T. M. Irvine, “Orientation- methanol/water mixtures,” The Journal of Physical dependent handedness and chiral design,” Phys. Rev. X Chemistry A 104, 4658–4669 (2000). 4, 011003 (2014). [71] Augustus Edward Hough Love, A treatise on the mathe- [63] Qian Chen, Jonathan K Whitmer, Shan Jiang, Sung Chul matical theory of elasticity (Cambridge university press, Bae, Erik Luijten, and Steve Granick, “Supracolloidal 2013). reaction kinetics of janus spheres,” Science 331, 199–202 [72] Philippe G Ciarlet, “An introduction to differential ge- (2011). ometry with applications to elasticity,” Journal of Elas- [64] Jean-Fran¸cois Sadoc and R´emy Mosseri, Geometrical ticity 78, 1–215 (2005). Frustration, Collection Alea-Saclay: Monographs and [73] Manfredo P Do Carmo, Differential geometry of curves Texts in Statistical Physics (Cambridge University Press, and surfaces: revised and updated second edition (Courier 1999). Dover Publications, 2016). [65] R Oda, I Huc, M Schmutz, SJ Candau, and FC MacK- intosh, “Tuning bilayer twist using chiral counterions,”