DNA Nanostructures Characterized via Dual Nanopore Resensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA nanotechnology uses predictable interactions of nucleic acids to precisely engineer complex nanostructures. Characterizing these self-assembled structures at the single-structure level is crucial for validating their design and functionality. Nanopore sensing is a promising technique for this purpose as it is label-free, solution-based, and high-throughput. Here, we present a device that incorporates dynamic feedback to control the translocation of DNA origami structures through and between two nanopores. We observe multiple translocations of the same structure through the two distinct nanopores as well as measure its time-of-flight between the pores. We use machine learning classification methods in tandem with classical analysis of dwell-time/blockade distributions to analyze the complex multitranslocation events generated by different nanostructures. With this approach, we demonstrate the ability to distinguish DNA nanostructures of different lengths and/or small structural differences, all of which are difficult to detect using conventional, single-nanopore sensing. In addition, we develop a finite element diffusion model of the time-of-flight process and estimate nanostructure size. This work establishes the dual nanopore device as a powerful tool for DNA nanostructure characterization.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".