Development and Characterization of DNA Origami Nanostructures and their Application as an Aptamer-Mediated Targeted Delivery System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The predictable geometries and intermolecular interactions of DNA have led to the development of many arbitrary nanoscale objects, including a class termed DNA origami. DNA origami nanostructure fabrication occurs through the folding of long, single-stranded DNA using short, single stranded oligonucleotides. Detailed herein is the development and characterization of DNA origami nanostructures with site-specific modifications for aptamer-mediated binding of target molecules. Molecular self-assembly is performed by thermal annealing and fabricated objects are purified by centrifugal filtration through molecular weight cut-off membranes. Nanostructures are characterized by agarose gel electrophoresis, UV-Vis quantification, and visualization by atomic force microscopy. Thrombin-binding aptamers, TBA15 and TBA29, were captured to the surface of rectangular DNA origami nanostructures and were incubated with the target, thrombin, to demonstrate the site-specific binding of target molecules. DNA origami nanostructures functionalized with aptamers for specific target recognition bear attractive potential for application in targeted therapies and targeted delivery of molecular payloads.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".