MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409220815 · doi:10.1093/synbio/ysaf008

Engineering a custom-sized DNA scaffold for more efficient DNA origami-based nucleic acid data storage

2025· article· en· W4409220815 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Kobernat, Maryna Lazouskaya, Benjamin Balzer, Amanda Wolf, Golam Md Mortuza, George D. Dickinson, Tim Andersen, William L. Hughes, Luca Piantanida, Eric J. Hayden

Bibliographic record

VenueSynthetic Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBoise State UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNucleic acidDNA origamiDNAScaffoldComputer scienceNanotechnologyChemistryMaterials scienceBiochemistryDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA has emerged as a promising material to address growing data storage demands. We recently demonstrated a structure-based DNA data storage approach where DNA probes are spatially oriented on the surface of DNA origami and decoded using DNA-PAINT. In this approach, larger origami structures could improve the efficiency of reading and writing data. However, larger origami require long single-stranded DNA scaffolds that are not commonly available. Here, we report the engineering of a novel longer DNA scaffold designed to produce a larger rectangle origami needed to expand the origami-based digital nucleic acid memory (dNAM) approach. We confirmed that this scaffold self-assembled into the correct origami platform and correctly positioned DNA data strands using atomic force microscopy and DNA-PAINT super-resolution microscopy. This larger structure enables a 67% increase in the number of data points per origami and will support efforts to efficiently scale up origami-based dNAM.

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 score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.285
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSynthetic BiologySame topicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniquesFrench-language works237,207