A Specialized Tri-species Comparator for the DNA PEN Toolbox
- 80 Downloads
We introduce a specialized module for molecular programming systems, designed to accelerate the comparison of species concentrations. Like in electronics, co-processors are important to increase the speed of crucial tasks. Concentration comparison is a central operation in DNA computing, similar to variable comparison in its electronic equivalent. This work represents the first attempt to make multiple comparison in a single step, while keeping the mechanism as optimized as possible with respect to enzymatic load.
We first demonstrate a possible implementation of the system, showing that there is no theoretical barrier to the design. In particular, it allows enough freedom in the sequence design to work around potential cross-talks in the system.
We then add our co-processor to a specific DNA computing paradigm, the PEN toolbox, and use it to implement an optimized tristable circuit and compare its performance to the standard design approach existing in the literature. Our design shows improved time response and lower impact on the saturation of key enzymes, making it a useful module for designing large systems.
KeywordsDNA Computing PEN Toolbox Specialized Modules Concentration Comparison Multistable System
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 7.Montagne, K., Plasson, R., Sakai, Y., Fujii, T. and Rondelez, Y., “Programming an in vitro DNA oscillator using a molecular networking strategy,” Molecular systems biology, 7, 1, 2011.Google Scholar
- 8.Franco, E., Friedrichs, E., Kim, J., Jungmann, R., Murray, R., Winfree, E. and Simmel, F. C., “Timing molecular motion and production with a synthetic transcriptional clock,” in Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 40, E784-E793, 2011.Google Scholar
- 9.Padirac, A., Fujii, T. and Rondelez, Y., “Bottom-up construction of in vitro switchable memories,” in Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 47, E3212-E3220, 2012.Google Scholar
- 12.Giordano, G., Franco, E. and Murray, R. M., “Feedback architectures to regulate flux of components in artificial gene networks, in the American Control Conference (ACC) 2013, IEEE, pp. 4747–4752, 2013.Google Scholar
- 13.Hagiya, M., Kawamata, I. and Aubert, N., “Towards persistent molecular computers for molecular robots,” in DNA Computing and Molecular Programming 19th International Conference, DNA19, extended abstract, 2013.Google Scholar
- 14.Aubert, N., Dinh, Q. H., Hagiya, M., Iba, H., Fujii, T., Bredeche, N. and Rondelez, Y., “Evolution of cheating DNA-based agents playing the game of rock-paper-scissors,” in Advances in Artificial Life, ECAL, 12, pp. 1143–1150, 2013.Google Scholar
- 15.Tanaka, F., Tsuda, T. and Hagiya, M., “Towards DNA comparator: the machine that compares DNA concentrations,” in DNA Computing, Springer, pp. 11–20, 2009.Google Scholar
- 18.Aubert, N., “Assisted Design of DNA Computing Systems: the DNA Toolbox and Beyond,” PhD thesis, The University of Tokyo, 2014.Google Scholar
- 19.Rudi, K., Kroken, M., Dahlberg, O., Deggerdal, A., Jakobsen, K. and Larsen, F., “Rapid, universal method to isolate PCR-ready DNA using magnetic beads,” BioTechniques, 22, 3, pp. 506–511, 1997.Google Scholar
- 23.Wolfram Research, Inc., Mathematica 8., Wolfram Research, Inc., 2010.Google Scholar
- 25.Lipton, R. J. et al., “DNA solution of hard computational problems,” Science, 268, 5210, pp. 542–545, 1995.Google Scholar
- 28.Thachuk, C. and Condon, A., “Space and energy efficient computation with DNA strand displacement systems,” in DNA Computing and Molecular Programming, Springer, pp. 135–149, 2012.Google Scholar