MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395112505 · doi:10.1039/d3nr06010a

Tri-state logic computation by activating DNA origami chains

2024· article· en· W4395112505 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kun Wang, Qiuyan Huang, Mohammed R. Elshaer, Brian Knorr, P. M. Chaikin, Guolong Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueNanoscale · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFairleigh Dickinson UniversityYork UniversityU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsHingeComputationState (computer science)Logic gateDNA origamiDNAAND gateComputer scienceTopology (electrical circuits)NanotechnologyPhysicsEngineeringMaterials scienceAlgorithmElectrical engineeringClassical mechanicsBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

.); however, realizing tri-state logic (high impedance Z) in DNA computation is understudied. Here we actively fold DNA origami chain-like hinged rods to induce conformational changes that return tri-state logic signals. We use rigid six helix-bundle (6HB) DNA origami to self-assemble a linear trimer chain as a circuit platform with functional single-stranded (ss) DNA near each semi-flexible hinge. The presence or absence of ssDNA enable and input strands allows hybridization to take place at the hinges, activating one fold (0) or two folds (1) from the straight linear geometry (defined as High-Z) of the trimer chain. We design two different tri-state logic gate platforms, buffer and inverter, with corresponding enable/input ssDNA to unambiguously return tri-state signals, characterized by Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) and/or agarose gel electrophoresis (GEL). Our work on tri-state logic significantly enhances DNA computation beyond the current two-state Boolean logic with both research and industrial applications, including cellular treatments and living matter utilizing the biocompatibility of DNA molecules.

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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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