Modular DNA origami–based electrochemical detection of DNA and proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diversity and heterogeneity of biomarkers has made the development of general methods for single-step quantification of analytes difficult. For individual biomarkers, electrochemical methods that detect a conformational change in an affinity binder upon analyte binding have shown promise. However, because the conformational change must operate within a nanometer-scale working distance, an entirely new sensor, with a unique conformational change, must be developed for each analyte. Here, we demonstrate a modular electrochemical biosensor, built from DNA origami, which is easily adapted to diverse molecules by merely replacing its analyte binding domains. Instead of relying on a unique nanometer-scale movement of a single redox reporter, all sensor variants rely on the same 100-nm scale conformational change, which brings dozens of reporters close enough to a gold electrode surface that a signal can be measured via square-wave voltammetry, a standard electrochemical technique. To validate our sensor's mechanism, we used single-stranded DNA as an analyte, and optimized the number of redox reporters and various linker lengths. Adaptation of the sensor to streptavidin and Platelet-Derived Growth Factor-BB (PDGF-BB) analytes was achieved by simply adding biotin or anti-PDGF aptamers to appropriate DNA linkers. Geometrically optimized streptavidin sensors exhibited signal gain and limit of detection markedly better than comparable reagentless electrochemical sensors. After use, the same sensors could be regenerated under mild conditions: Performance was largely maintained over four cycles of DNA strand displacement and rehybridization. By leveraging the modularity of DNA nanostructures, our work provides a straightforward route to the single-step quantification of arbitrary nucleic acids and proteins.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".