Computational Approaches to Nucleic Acid Origami
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in experimental DNA origami have dramatically expanded the horizon of DNA nanotechnology. Complex 3D suprastructures have been designed and developed using DNA origami with applications in biomaterial science, nanomedicine, nanorobotics, and molecular computation. Ribonucleic acid (RNA) origami has recently been realized as a new approach. Similar to DNA, RNA molecules can be designed to form complex 3D structures through complementary base pairings. RNA origami structures are, however, more compact and more thermodynamically stable due to RNA's non-canonical base pairing and tertiary interactions. With all these advantages, the development of RNA origami lags behind DNA origami by a large gap. Furthermore, although computational methods have proven to be effective in designing DNA and RNA origami structures and in their evaluation, advances in computational nucleic acid origami is even more limited. In this paper, we review major milestones in experimental and computational DNA and RNA origami and present current challenges in these fields. We believe collaboration between experimental nanotechnologists and computer scientists are critical for advancing these new research paradigms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".