Jump to content

DNA computing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected fromMolecular computer)
The biocompatible computing device: Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)

DNA computingis an emerging branch ofunconventional computingwhich usesDNA,biochemistry,andmolecular biologyhardware, instead of the traditionalelectronic computing.Research and development in this area concerns theory, experiments, and applications of DNA computing. Although the field originally started with the demonstration of a computing application byLen Adlemanin 1994, it has now been expanded to several other avenues such as the development of storage technologies,[1][2][3]nanoscale imaging modalities,[4][5][6]synthetic controllers and reaction networks,[7][8][9][10]etc.

History[edit]

Leonard Adlemanof theUniversity of Southern Californiainitially developed this field in 1994.[11]Adleman demonstrated aproof-of-conceptuse of DNA as a form of computation which solved the seven-pointHamiltonian path problem.Since the initial Adleman experiments, advances have occurred and variousTuring machineshave been proven to be constructible.[12][13]

Since then the field has expanded into several avenues. In 1995, the idea for DNA-based memory was proposed by Eric Baum[14]who conjectured that a vast amount of data can be stored in a tiny amount of DNA due to its ultra-high density. This expanded the horizon of DNA computing into the realm of memory technology although thein vitrodemonstrations were made almost after a decade.

The field of DNA computing can be categorized as a sub-field of the broaderDNA nanosciencefield started byNed Seemanabout a decade before Len Adleman's demonstration.[15]Ned's original idea in the 1980s was to build arbitrary structures using bottom-up DNA self-assembly for applications in crystallography. However, it morphed into the field of structural DNA self-assembly[16][17][18]which as of 2020 is extremely sophisticated. Self-assembled structure from a few nanometers tall all the way up to several tens of micrometers in size have been demonstrated in 2018.

In 1994, Prof. Seeman's group demonstrated early DNA lattice structures using a small set of DNA components. While the demonstration by Adleman showed the possibility of DNA-based computers, the DNA design was trivial because as the number of nodes in a graph grows, the number of DNA components required in Adleman's implementation would grow exponentially. Therefore, computer scientists and biochemists started exploring tile-assembly where the goal was to use a small set of DNA strands as tiles to perform arbitrary computations upon growth. Other avenues that were theoretically explored in the late 90's include DNA-based security and cryptography,[19]computational capacity of DNA systems,[20]DNA memories and disks,[21]and DNA-based robotics.[22]

Before 2002,Lila Karishowed that the DNA operations performed by genetic recombination in some organisms are Turing complete.[23]

In 2003,John Reif's groupfirst demonstrated the idea of a DNA-based walker that traversed along a track similar to a line follower robot. They used molecular biology as a source of energy for the walker. Since this first demonstration, a wide variety of DNA-based walkers have been demonstrated.

Applications, examples, and recent developments[edit]

In 1994Leonard Adlemanpresented the first prototype of a DNA computer. TheTT-100was a test tube filled with 100 microliters of a DNA solution. He managed to solve an instance of the directedHamiltonian pathproblem.[24]In Adleman's experiment, the Hamiltonian Path Problem was implemented notationally as the "travelling salesman problem".For this purpose, different DNA fragments were created, each one of them representing a city that had to be visited. Every one of these fragments is capable of a linkage with the other fragments created. These DNA fragments were produced and mixed in atest tube.Within seconds, the small fragments form bigger ones, representing the different travel routes. Through a chemical reaction, the DNA fragments representing the longer routes were eliminated. The remains are the solution to the problem, but overall, the experiment lasted a week.[25]However, current technical limitations prevent the evaluation of the results. Therefore, the experiment isn't suitable for the application, but it is nevertheless aproof of concept.

Combinatorial problems[edit]

First results to these problems were obtained byLeonard Adleman.

Tic-tac-toe game[edit]

In 2002, J. Macdonald, D. Stefanović and M. Stojanović created a DNA computer able to playtic-tac-toeagainst a human player.[26]The calculator consists of nine bins corresponding to the nine squares of the game. Each bin contains a substrate and various combinations of DNA enzymes. The substrate itself is composed of a DNA strand onto which was grafted a fluorescent chemical group at one end, and the other end, a repressor group. Fluorescence is only active if the molecules of the substrate are cut in half. The DNA enzymes simulatelogical functions.For example, such a DNA will unfold if two specific types of DNA strand are introduced to reproduce the logic function AND.

By default, the computer is considered to have played first in the central square. The human player starts with eight different types of DNA strands corresponding to the eight remaining boxes that may be played. To play box number i, the human player pours into all bins the strands corresponding to input #i. These strands bind to certain DNA enzymes present in the bins, resulting, in one of these bins, in the deformation of the DNA enzymes which binds to the substrate and cuts it. The corresponding bin becomes fluorescent, indicating which box is being played by the DNA computer. The DNA enzymes are divided among the bins in such a way as to ensure that the best the human player can achieve is a draw, as in real tic-tac-toe.

Neural network based computing[edit]

Kevin Cherry andLulu Qianat Caltech developed a DNA-based artificial neural network that can recognize 100-bit hand-written digits. They achieve this by programming on computer in advance with appropriate set of weights represented by varying concentrations weight molecules which will later be added to the test tube that holds the input DNA strands.[27][28]

Improved speed with Localized (cache-like) Computing[edit]

One of the challenges of DNA computing is its speed. While DNA as a substrate is biologically compatible i.e. it can be used at places where silicon technology cannot, its computation speed is still very slow. For example, the square-root circuit used as a benchmark in field took over 100 hours to complete.[29]While newer ways with external enzyme sources are reporting faster and more compact circuits,[30]Chatterjee et al. demonstrated an interesting idea in the field to speed up computation through localized DNA circuits,[31]a concept being further explored by other groups.[32]This idea, while originally proposed in the field of computer architecture, has been adopted in this field as well. In computer architecture, it is very well-known that if the instructions are executed in sequence, having them loaded in the cache will inevitably lead to fast performance, also called the principle of localization. This is because with instructions in fast cache memory, there is no need swap them in and out of main memory, which can be slow. Similarly, inlocalized DNA computing,the DNA strands responsible for computation are fixed on a breadboard-like substrate ensuring physical proximity of the computing gates. Such localized DNA computing techniques have shown to potentially reduce the computation time byorders of magnitude.

Renewable (or reversible) DNA computing[edit]

Subsequent research on DNA computing has producedreversible DNA computing,bringing the technology one step closer to the silicon-based computing used in (for example)PCs.In particular,John Reifand his group at Duke University have proposed two different techniques to reuse the computing DNA complexes. The first design uses dsDNA gates,[33]while the second design uses DNA hairpin complexes.[34] While both the designs face some issues (such as reaction leaks), this appears to represent a significant breakthrough in the field of DNA computing. Some other groups have also attempted to address the gate reusability problem.[35][36]

Using strand displacement reactions (SRDs), reversible proposals are presented in the"Synthesis Strategy of Reversible Circuits on DNA Computers" paper[37]for implementing reversible gates and circuits on DNA computers by combining DNA computing and reversible computing techniques. This paper also proposes a universal reversible gate library (URGL) for synthesizing n-bit reversible circuits on DNA computers with an average length and cost of the constructed circuits better than the previous methods.

Methods[edit]

There are multiple methods for building a computing device based on DNA, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Most of these build the basic logic gates (AND,OR,NOT) associated withdigital logicfrom a DNA basis. Some of the different bases include DNAzymes,deoxyoligonucleotides,enzymes, and toehold exchange.

Strand displacement mechanisms[edit]

The most fundamental operation in DNA computing and molecular programming is the strand displacement mechanism. Currently, there are two ways to perform strand displacement:

  • Toehold mediated strand displacement (TMSD)[29]
  • Polymerase-based strand displacement (PSD)[7]

Toehold exchange[edit]

Besides simple strand displacement schemes, DNA computers have also been constructed using the concept of toehold exchange.[28]In this system, an input DNA strand binds to asticky end,or toehold, on another DNA molecule, which allows it to displace another strand segment from the molecule. This allows the creation of modular logic components such as AND, OR, and NOT gates and signal amplifiers, which can be linked into arbitrarily large computers. This class of DNA computers does not require enzymes or any chemical capability of the DNA.[38]

Chemical reaction networks (CRNs)[edit]

The full stack for DNA computing looks very similar to a traditional computer architecture. At the highest level, a C-like general purpose programming language is expressed using a set ofchemical reaction networks (CRNs).This intermediate representation gets translated to domain-level DNA design and then implemented using a set of DNA strands. In 2010,Erik Winfree's groupshowed that DNA can be used as a substrate to implement arbitrary chemical reactions. This opened the way to design and synthesis of biochemical controllers since the expressive power of CRNs is equivalent to a Turing machine.[7][8][9][10]Such controllers can potentially be usedin vivofor applications such as preventing hormonal imbalance.

DNAzymes[edit]

Catalytic DNA (deoxyribozymeor DNAzyme) catalyze a reaction when interacting with the appropriate input, such as a matchingoligonucleotide.These DNAzymes are used to build logic gates analogous to digital logic in silicon; however, DNAzymes are limited to 1-, 2-, and 3-input gates with no current implementation for evaluating statements in series.

The DNAzyme logic gate changes its structure when it binds to a matching oligonucleotide and the fluorogenic substrate it is bonded to is cleaved free. While other materials can be used, most models use a fluorescence-based substrate because it is very easy to detect, even at the single molecule limit.[39]The amount of fluorescence can then be measured to tell whether or not a reaction took place. The DNAzyme that changes is then "used", and cannot initiate any more reactions. Because of this, these reactions take place in a device such as a continuous stirred-tank reactor, where old product is removed and new molecules added.

Two commonly used DNAzymes are named E6 and 8-17. These are popular because they allow cleaving of a substrate in any arbitrary location.[40]Stojanovic and MacDonald have used the E6 DNAzymes to build theMAYA I[41]andMAYA II[42]machines, respectively; Stojanovic has also demonstrated logic gates using the 8-17 DNAzyme.[43]While these DNAzymes have been demonstrated to be useful for constructing logic gates, they are limited by the need for a metal cofactor to function, such as Zn2+or Mn2+,and thus are not usefulin vivo.[39][44]

A design called astem loop,consisting of a single strand of DNA which has a loop at an end, are a dynamic structure that opens and closes when a piece of DNA bonds to the loop part. This effect has been exploited to create severallogic gates.These logic gates have been used to create the computers MAYA I andMAYA IIwhich can playtic-tac-toeto some extent.[45]

Enzymes[edit]

Enzyme-based DNA computers are usually of the form of a simpleTuring machine;there is analogous hardware, in the form of an enzyme, and software, in the form of DNA.[46]

Benenson, Shapiro and colleagues have demonstrated a DNA computer using theFokIenzyme[47]and expanded on their work by going on to show automata that diagnose and react toprostate cancer:under expression of the genesPPAP2BandGSTP1and an over expression ofPIM1andHPN.[48]Their automata evaluated the expression of each gene, one gene at a time, and on positive diagnosis then released a single strand DNA molecule (ssDNA) that is an antisense forMDM2.MDM2 is a repressor ofprotein 53,which itself is a tumor suppressor.[49]On negative diagnosis it was decided to release a suppressor of the positive diagnosis drug instead of doing nothing. A limitation of this implementation is that two separate automata are required, one to administer each drug. The entire process of evaluation until drug release took around an hour to complete. This method also requires transition molecules as well as the FokI enzyme to be present. The requirement for the FokI enzyme limits applicationin vivo,at least for use in "cells of higher organisms".[50]It should also be pointed out that the 'software' molecules can be reused in this case.

Algorithmic self-assembly[edit]

DNA arrays that display a representation of theSierpinski gasketon their surfaces. Click the image for further details. Image from Rothemundet al.,2004.[51]
Main article:DNA nanotechnology: Algorithmic self-assembly

DNA nanotechnology has been applied to the related field of DNA computing. DNA tiles can be designed to contain multiple sticky ends with sequences chosen so that they act asWang tiles.A DX array has been demonstrated whose assembly encodes anXORoperation; this allows the DNA array to implement acellular automatonwhich generates afractalcalled theSierpinski gasket.This shows that computation can be incorporated into the assembly of DNA arrays, increasing its scope beyond simple periodic arrays.[51]

Capabilities[edit]

DNA computing is a form ofparallel computingin that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[52]For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer.

DNA computing does not provide any new capabilities from the standpoint ofcomputability theory,the study of which problems are computationally solvable using different models of computation. For example, if the space required for the solution of a problem grows exponentially with the size of the problem (EXPSPACEproblems) onvon Neumann machines,it still grows exponentially with the size of the problem on DNA machines. For very large EXPSPACE problems, the amount of DNA required is too large to be practical.

Alternative technologies[edit]

A partnership betweenIBMandCaltechwas established in 2009 aiming at "DNA chips"production.[53]A Caltech group is working on the manufacturing of these nucleic-acid-based integrated circuits. One of these chips can compute whole square roots.[54]A compiler has been written[55]inPerl.

Pros and cons[edit]

The slow processing speed of a DNA computer (the response time is measured in minutes, hours or days, rather than milliseconds) is compensated by its potential to make a high amount of multiple parallel computations. This allows the system to take a similar amount of time for a complex calculation as for a simple one. This is achieved by the fact that millions or billions of molecules interact with each other simultaneously. However, it is much harder to analyze the answers given by a DNA computer than by a digital one.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^Church, G. M.; Gao, Y.; Kosuri, S. (2012-08-16)."Next-Generation Digital Information Storage in DNA".Science.337(6102): 1628.Bibcode:2012Sci...337.1628C.doi:10.1126/science.1226355.ISSN0036-8075.PMID22903519.S2CID934617.
  2. ^Erlich, Yaniv; Zielinski, Dina (2017-03-02)."DNA Fountain enables a robust and efficient storage architecture".Science.355(6328): 950–954.Bibcode:2017Sci...355..950E.doi:10.1126/science.aaj2038.ISSN0036-8075.PMID28254941.S2CID13470340.
  3. ^Organick, Lee; Ang, Siena Dumas; Chen, Yuan-Jyue; Lopez, Randolph; Yekhanin, Sergey; Makarychev, Konstantin; Racz, Miklos Z.; Kamath, Govinda; Gopalan, Parikshit; Nguyen, Bichlien; Takahashi, Christopher N. (March 2018)."Random access in large-scale DNA data storage".Nature Biotechnology.36(3): 242–248.doi:10.1038/nbt.4079.ISSN1546-1696.PMID29457795.S2CID205285821.
  4. ^Shah, Shalin; Dubey, Abhishek K.; Reif, John (2019-04-10). "Programming Temporal DNA Barcodes for Single-Molecule Fingerprinting".Nano Letters.19(4): 2668–2673.Bibcode:2019NanoL..19.2668S.doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.9b00590.ISSN1530-6984.PMID30896178.S2CID84841635.
  5. ^Sharonov, Alexey; Hochstrasser, Robin M. (2006-12-12)."Wide-field subdiffraction imaging by accumulated binding of diffusing probes".Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.103(50): 18911–18916.Bibcode:2006PNAS..10318911S.doi:10.1073/pnas.0609643104.ISSN0027-8424.PMC1748151.PMID17142314.
  6. ^Jungmann, Ralf; Avendaño, Maier S.; Dai, Mingjie; Woehrstein, Johannes B.; Agasti, Sarit S.; Feiger, Zachary; Rodal, Avital; Yin, Peng (May 2016)."Quantitative super-resolution imaging with qPAINT".Nature Methods.13(5): 439–442.doi:10.1038/nmeth.3804.ISSN1548-7105.PMC4941813.PMID27018580.
  7. ^abcShah, Shalin; Wee, Jasmine; Song, Tianqi; Ceze, Luis;Strauss, Karin;Chen, Yuan-Jyue; Reif, John (2020-05-04). "Using Strand Displacing Polymerase To Program Chemical Reaction Networks".Journal of the American Chemical Society.142(21): 9587–9593.doi:10.1021/jacs.0c02240.ISSN0002-7863.PMID32364723.S2CID218504535.
  8. ^abChen, Yuan-Jyue; Dalchau, Neil; Srinivas, Niranjan; Phillips, Andrew; Cardelli, Luca; Soloveichik, David; Seelig, Georg (October 2013)."Programmable chemical controllers made from DNA".Nature Nanotechnology.8(10): 755–762.Bibcode:2013NatNa...8..755C.doi:10.1038/nnano.2013.189.ISSN1748-3395.PMC4150546.PMID24077029.
  9. ^abSrinivas, Niranjan; Parkin, James; Seelig, Georg; Winfree, Erik; Soloveichik, David (2017-12-15)."Enzyme-free nucleic acid dynamical systems".Science.358(6369): eaal2052.doi:10.1126/science.aal2052.ISSN0036-8075.PMID29242317.
  10. ^abSoloveichik, David; Seelig, Georg; Winfree, Erik (2010-03-23)."DNA as a universal substrate for chemical kinetics".Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.107(12): 5393–5398.Bibcode:2010PNAS..107.5393S.doi:10.1073/pnas.0909380107.ISSN0027-8424.PMC2851759.PMID20203007.
  11. ^Adleman, L. M. (1994). "Molecular computation of solutions to combinatorial problems".Science.266(5187): 1021–1024.Bibcode:1994Sci...266.1021A.CiteSeerX10.1.1.54.2565.doi:10.1126/science.7973651.PMID7973651.— The first DNA computing paper. Describes a solution for the directedHamiltonian path problem.Also available here:"Archived copy"(PDF).Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 2005-02-06.Retrieved2005-11-21.{{cite web}}:CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  12. ^Boneh, D.; Dunworth, C.; Lipton, R. J.; Sgall, J. Í. (1996)."On the computational power of DNA".Discrete Applied Mathematics.71(1–3): 79–94.doi:10.1016/S0166-218X(96)00058-3.— Describes a solution for theboolean satisfiability problem.Also available here:"Archived copy"(PDF).Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 2012-04-06.Retrieved2011-10-14.{{cite web}}:CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  13. ^Lila Kari; Greg Gloor; Sheng Yu (January 2000)."Using DNA to solve the Bounded Post Correspondence Problem".Theoretical Computer Science.231(2): 192–203.doi:10.1016/s0304-3975(99)00100-0.— Describes a solution for the boundedPost correspondence problem,a hard-on-average NP-complete problem. Also available here:[1]
  14. ^Baum, E. B. (1995-04-28)."Building an associative memory vastly larger than the brain".Science.268(5210): 583–585.Bibcode:1995Sci...268..583B.doi:10.1126/science.7725109.ISSN0036-8075.PMID7725109.
  15. ^Seeman, Nadrian C. (1982-11-21). "Nucleic acid junctions and lattices".Journal of Theoretical Biology.99(2): 237–247.Bibcode:1982JThBi..99..237S.doi:10.1016/0022-5193(82)90002-9.ISSN0022-5193.PMID6188926.
  16. ^Tikhomirov, Grigory; Petersen, Philip; Qian, Lulu (December 2017)."Fractal assembly of micrometre-scale DNA origami arrays with arbitrary patterns".Nature.552(7683): 67–71.Bibcode:2017Natur.552...67T.doi:10.1038/nature24655.ISSN1476-4687.PMID29219965.S2CID4455780.
  17. ^Wagenbauer, Klaus F.; Sigl, Christian; Dietz, Hendrik (December 2017)."Gigadalton-scale shape-programmable DNA assemblies".Nature.552(7683): 78–83.Bibcode:2017Natur.552...78W.doi:10.1038/nature24651.ISSN1476-4687.PMID29219966.S2CID205262182.
  18. ^Ong, Luvena L.; Hanikel, Nikita; Yaghi, Omar K.; Grun, Casey; Strauss, Maximilian T.; Bron, Patrick; Lai-Kee-Him, Josephine; Schueder, Florian; Wang, Bei; Wang, Pengfei; Kishi, Jocelyn Y. (December 2017)."Programmable self-assembly of three-dimensional nanostructures from 10,000 unique components".Nature.552(7683): 72–77.Bibcode:2017Natur.552...72O.doi:10.1038/nature24648.ISSN1476-4687.PMC5786436.PMID29219968.
  19. ^Leier, André; Richter, Christoph; Banzhaf, Wolfgang; Rauhe, Hilmar (2000-06-01)."Cryptography with DNA binary strands".Biosystems.57(1): 13–22.Bibcode:2000BiSys..57...13L.doi:10.1016/S0303-2647(00)00083-6.ISSN0303-2647.PMID10963862.
  20. ^Guarnieri, Frank; Fliss, Makiko; Bancroft, Carter (1996-07-12)."Making DNA Add".Science.273(5272): 220–223.Bibcode:1996Sci...273..220G.doi:10.1126/science.273.5272.220.ISSN0036-8075.PMID8662501.S2CID6051207.
  21. ^Bancroft, Carter; Bowler, Timothy; Bloom, Brian; Clelland, Catherine Taylor (2001-09-07)."Long-Term Storage of Information in DNA".Science.293(5536): 1763–1765.doi:10.1126/science.293.5536.1763c.ISSN0036-8075.PMID11556362.S2CID34699434.
  22. ^Yin, Peng; Yan, Hao; Daniell, Xiaoju G.; Turberfield, Andrew J.; Reif, John H. (2004). "A Unidirectional DNA Walker That Moves Autonomously along a Track".Angewandte Chemie International Edition.43(37): 4906–4911.doi:10.1002/anie.200460522.ISSN1521-3773.PMID15372637.
  23. ^"Biocomputing researcher awarded the Bucke Prize",Western News,University of Western Ontario,March 21, 2002
  24. ^Braich, Ravinderjit S., et al. "Solution of a satisfiability problem on a gel-based DNA computer."DNA Computing.Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2001. 27-42.
  25. ^Adleman, Leonard M (1998). "Computing with DNA".Scientific American.279(2): 54–61.Bibcode:1998SciAm.279b..54A.doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0898-54.
  26. ^[FR] - J. Macdonald, D. Stefanovic et M. Stojanovic,Des assemblages d'ADN rompus au jeu et au travail,Pour la Science,No. 375, January 2009, p. 68-75
  27. ^Qian, Lulu; Winfree, Erik; Bruck, Jehoshua (July 2011). "Neural network computation with DNA strand displacement cascades".Nature.475(7356): 368–372.doi:10.1038/nature10262.ISSN0028-0836.PMID21776082.S2CID1735584.
  28. ^abCherry, Kevin M.; Qian, Lulu (2018-07-04)."Scaling up molecular pattern recognition with DNA-based winner-take-all neural networks".Nature.559(7714): 370–376.Bibcode:2018Natur.559..370C.doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0289-6.ISSN0028-0836.PMID29973727.S2CID49566504.
  29. ^abQian, L.; Winfree, E. (2011-06-02). "Scaling Up Digital Circuit Computation with DNA Strand Displacement Cascades".Science.332(6034): 1196–1201.Bibcode:2011Sci...332.1196Q.doi:10.1126/science.1200520.ISSN0036-8075.PMID21636773.S2CID10053541.
  30. ^Song, Tianqi; Eshra, Abeer; Shah, Shalin; Bui, Hieu; Fu, Daniel; Yang, Ming; Mokhtar, Reem; Reif, John (2019-09-23). "Fast and compact DNA logic circuits based on single-stranded gates using strand-displacing polymerase".Nature Nanotechnology.14(11): 1075–1081.Bibcode:2019NatNa..14.1075S.doi:10.1038/s41565-019-0544-5.ISSN1748-3387.PMID31548688.S2CID202729100.
  31. ^Chatterjee, Gourab; Dalchau, Neil; Muscat, Richard A.; Phillips, Andrew; Seelig, Georg (2017-07-24). "A spatially localized architecture for fast and modular DNA computing".Nature Nanotechnology.12(9): 920–927.Bibcode:2017NatNa..12..920C.doi:10.1038/nnano.2017.127.ISSN1748-3387.PMID28737747.
  32. ^Bui, Hieu; Shah, Shalin; Mokhtar, Reem; Song, Tianqi; Garg, Sudhanshu; Reif, John (2018-01-25). "Localized DNA Hybridization Chain Reactions on DNA Origami".ACS Nano.12(2): 1146–1155.doi:10.1021/acsnano.7b06699.ISSN1936-0851.PMID29357217.
  33. ^Garg, Sudhanshu; Shah, Shalin; Bui, Hieu; Song, Tianqi; Mokhtar, Reem; Reif, John (2018)."Renewable Time-Responsive DNA Circuits".Small.14(33): 1801470.doi:10.1002/smll.201801470.ISSN1613-6829.PMID30022600.
  34. ^ Eshra, A.; Shah, S.; Song, T.; Reif, J. (2019). "Renewable DNA hairpin-based logic circuits".IEEE Transactions on Nanotechnology.18:252–259.arXiv:1704.06371.Bibcode:2019ITNan..18..252E.doi:10.1109/TNANO.2019.2896189.ISSN1536-125X.S2CID5616325.
  35. ^Song, Xin; Eshra, Abeer; Dwyer, Chris; Reif, John (2017-05-25)."Renewable DNA seesaw logic circuits enabled by photoregulation of toehold-mediated strand displacement".RSC Advances.7(45): 28130–28144.Bibcode:2017RSCAd...728130S.doi:10.1039/C7RA02607B.ISSN2046-2069.
  36. ^Goel, Ashish; Ibrahimi, Morteza (2009). "Renewable, Time-Responsive DNA Logic Gates for Scalable Digital Circuits". In Deaton, Russell; Suyama, Akira (eds.).DNA Computing and Molecular Programming.Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 5877. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 67–77.doi:10.1007/978-3-642-10604-0_7.ISBN978-3-642-10604-0.
  37. ^Rofail, Mirna; Younes, Ahmed (July 2021)."Synthesis Strategy of Reversible Circuits on DNA Computers".Symmetry.13(7): 1242.Bibcode:2021Symm...13.1242R.doi:10.3390/sym13071242.
  38. ^Seelig, G.; Soloveichik, D.; Zhang, D. Y.; Winfree, E. (8 December 2006)."Enzyme-free nucleic acid logic circuits"(PDF).Science.314(5805): 1585–1588.Bibcode:2006Sci...314.1585S.doi:10.1126/science.1132493.PMID17158324.S2CID10966324.
  39. ^ab Weiss, S. (1999). "Fluorescence Spectroscopy of Single Biomolecules".Science.283(5408): 1676–1683.Bibcode:1999Sci...283.1676W.doi:10.1126/science.283.5408.1676.PMID10073925.S2CID9697423..Also available here:http:// lps.ens.fr/~vincent/smb/PDF/weiss-1.pdf
  40. ^ Santoro, S. W.; Joyce, G. F. (1997)."A general purpose RNA-cleaving DNA enzyme".Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.94(9): 4262–4266.Bibcode:1997PNAS...94.4262S.doi:10.1073/pnas.94.9.4262.PMC20710.PMID9113977..Also available here:[2]
  41. ^ Stojanovic, M. N.; Stefanovic, D. (2003). "A deoxyribozyme-based molecular automaton".Nature Biotechnology.21(9): 1069–1074.doi:10.1038/nbt862.PMID12923549.S2CID184520..Also available here:[3]
  42. ^ MacDonald, J.; Li, Y.; Sutovic, M.; Lederman, H.; Pendri, K.; Lu, W.; Andrews, B. L.; Stefanovic, D.; Stojanovic, M. N. (2006). "Medium Scale Integration of Molecular Logic Gates in an Automaton".Nano Letters.6(11): 2598–2603.Bibcode:2006NanoL...6.2598M.doi:10.1021/nl0620684.PMID17090098..Also available here:[4]
  43. ^ Stojanovic, M. N.; Mitchell, T. E.; Stefanovic, D. (2002)."Deoxyribozyme-Based Logic Gates".Journal of the American Chemical Society.124(14): 3555–3561.doi:10.1021/ja016756v.PMID11929243..Also available at[5]
  44. ^ Cruz, R. P. G.; Withers, J. B.; Li, Y. (2004)."Dinucleotide Junction Cleavage Versatility of 8-17 Deoxyribozyme".Chemistry & Biology.11(1): 57–67.doi:10.1016/j.chembiol.2003.12.012.hdl:11375/23673.PMID15112995.
  45. ^Darko Stefanovic's Group,Molecular Logic GatesArchived2010-06-18 at theWayback MachineandMAYA II, a second-generation tic-tac-toe playing automatonArchived2010-06-18 at theWayback Machine.
  46. ^Shapiro, Ehud(1999-12-07)."A Mechanical Turing Machine: Blueprint for a Biomolecular Computer".Interface Focus.2(4).Weizmann Institute of Science:497–503.doi:10.1098/rsfs.2011.0118.PMC3363030.PMID22649583.Archived fromthe originalon 2009-01-03.Retrieved2009-08-13.
  47. ^Benenson, Y.; Paz-Elizur, T.; Adar, R.; Keinan, E.; Livneh, Z.; Shapiro, E. (2001)."Programmable and autonomous computing machine made of biomolecules".Nature.414(6862): 430–434.Bibcode:2001Natur.414..430B.doi:10.1038/35106533.PMC3838952.PMID11719800..Also available here:[6]Archived2012-05-10 at theWayback Machine
  48. ^Benenson, Y.; Gil, B.; Ben-Dor, U.; Adar, R.; Shapiro, E. (2004)."An autonomous molecular computer for logical control of gene expression".Nature.429(6990): 423–429.Bibcode:2004Natur.429..423B.doi:10.1038/nature02551.PMC3838955.PMID15116117..Also available here:An autonomous molecular computer for logical control of gene expression
  49. ^ Bond, G. L.; Hu, W.; Levine, A. J. (2005). "MDM2 is a Central Node in the p53 Pathway: 12 Years and Counting".Current Cancer Drug Targets.5(1): 3–8.doi:10.2174/1568009053332627.PMID15720184.
  50. ^ Kahan, M.; Gil, B.; Adar, R.; Shapiro, E. (2008). "Towards molecular computers that operate in a biological environment".Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena.237(9): 1165–1172.Bibcode:2008PhyD..237.1165K.doi:10.1016/j.physd.2008.01.027..Also available here:[7]
  51. ^abRothemund, P. W. K.; Papadakis, N.; Winfree, E. (2004)."Algorithmic Self-Assembly of DNA Sierpinski Triangles".PLOS Biology.2(12): e424.doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020424.PMC534809.PMID15583715.
  52. ^ Lewin, D. I. (2002). "DNA computing".Computing in Science & Engineering.4(3): 5–8.Bibcode:2002CSE.....4c...5L.doi:10.1109/5992.998634.
  53. ^[8](Caltech's own article)ArchivedOctober 14, 2011, at theWayback Machine
  54. ^Scaling Up Digital Circuit Computation with DNA Strand Displacement Cascades
  55. ^[9]Online

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DNA_computing&oldid=1232811763"