Materials and Methods
The sequences of the DNA strands making up a target structure are designed computationally, using molecular modeling and thermodynamic modeling software. The nucleic acids themselves are then synthesized using standard oligonucleotide synthesis methods, usually automated in an oligonucleotide synthesizer, and strands of custom sequences are commercially available. Strands can be purified by denaturing gel electrophoresis if needed, and precise concentrations determined via any of several nucleic acid quantitation methods using ultraviolet absorbance spectroscopy.
The fully formed target structures can be verified using native gel electrophoresis, which gives size and shape information for the nucleic acid complexes. An electrophoretic mobility shift assay can assess whether a structure incorporates all desired strands. Fluorescent labeling and Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET) are sometimes used to characterize the structure of the complexes.
Nucleic acid structures can be directly imaged by atomic force microscopy, which is well suited to extended two-dimensional structures, but less useful for discrete three-dimensional structures because of the microscope tip's interaction with the fragile nucleic acid structure; transmission electron microscopy and cryo-electron microscopy are often used in this case. Extended three-dimensional lattices are analyzed by X-ray crystallography.
Read more about this topic: DNA Nanotechnology
Famous quotes containing the words materials and/or methods:
“If our entertainment culture seems debased and unsatisfying, the hope is that our children will create something of greater worth. But it is as if we expect them to create out of nothing, like God, for the encouragement of creativity is in the popular mind, opposed to instruction. There is little sense that creativity must grow out of tradition, even when it is critical of that tradition, and children are scarcely being given the materials on which their creativity could work”
—C. John Sommerville (20th century)
“The comparison between Coleridge and Johnson is obvious in so far as each held sway chiefly by the power of his tongue. The difference between their methods is so marked that it is tempting, but also unnecessary, to judge one to be inferior to the other. Johnson was robust, combative, and concrete; Coleridge was the opposite. The contrast was perhaps in his mind when he said of Johnson: “his bow-wow manner must have had a good deal to do with the effect produced.””
—Virginia Woolf (1882–1941)