MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330600962 · doi:10.1021/bm500613s

Controlled Growth of DNA Structures From Repeating Units Using the Vernier Mechanism

2014· article· en· W2330600962 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrea A. Greschner, Katherine E. Bujold, Hanadi F. Sleiman

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomacromolecules · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDNABase pairDuplex (building)DNA origamiVernier scaleChemistryBiophysicsCrystallographyNanotechnologyBiologyMaterials scienceBiochemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this report, we demonstrate the assembly of length-programmed DNA nanostructures using a single 16 base sequence and its complement as building blocks. To achieve this, we applied the Vernier mechanism to DNA assembly, which uses a mismatch in length between two monomers to dictate the final length of the product. Specifically, this approach relies on the interaction of two DNA strands containing a different number (n, m) of complementary binding sites: these two strands will keep binding to each other until they come into register, thus generating a larger assembly whose length (n × m) is encoded by the number of binding sites in each strand. While the Vernier mechanism has been applied to other areas of supramolecular chemistry, here we present an application of its principles to DNA nanostructures. Using a single 16 base repeat and its complement, and varying the number of repeats on a given DNA strand, we show the consistent construction of duplexes up to 228 base pairs (bp) in length. Employing specific annealing protocols, strand capping, and intercalator chaperones allows us to further grow the duplex to 392 base pairs. We demonstrate that the Vernier method is not only strand-efficient, but also produces a cleaner, higher-yielding product than conventional designs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomacromoleculesSame topicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniquesFrench-language works237,207