Advertisement

Synthesizing Minimal Tile Sets for Complex Patterns in the Framework of Patterned DNA Self-Assembly

  • Eugen Czeizler
  • Alexandru Popa
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7433)

Abstract

Ma and Lombardi (2009) introduce and study the Pattern self-Assembly Tile set Synthesis (PATS) problem. In particular they show that the optimization version of the PATS problem is NP-hard. However, their NP-hardness proof turns out to be incorrect. Our main result is to give a correct NP-hardness proof via a reduction from the 3SAT. By definition, the PATS problem assumes that the assembly of a pattern starts always from an “L”-shaped seed structure, fixing the borders of the pattern. In this context, we study the assembly complexity of various pattern families and we show how to construct families of patterns which require a non-constant number of tiles to be assembled.

Keywords

Assembly Complexity Truth Assignment Tile Type Tile Assembly Model Tile Assembly System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adleman, L., Cheng, Q., Goel, A., Huang, M.: Running time and program size for self-assembled squares. In: STOC 2001: Proc. 32nd Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Czeizler, E., Lempiäinen, T., Orponen, P.: A design framework for carbon nanotube circuits affixed on DNA origami tiles. In: Proc. FNANO 2011 (2011) (Poster)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Douglas, S., Bachelet, I., Church, G.: A Logic-Gated Nanorobot for Targeted Transport of Molecular Payloads. Science 335(6070) (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Göös, M., Orponen, P.: Synthesizing Minimal Tile Sets for Patterned DNA Self-assembly. In: Sakakibara, Y., Mi, Y. (eds.) DNA 16 2010. LNCS, vol. 6518, pp. 71–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kuzyk, A., Laitinen, K., Törmä, P.: DNA origami as a nanoscale template for protein assembly. Nanotechnology 20(23) (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lempiäinen, T., Czeizler, E., Orponen, P.: Synthesizing Small and Reliable Tile Sets for Patterned DNA Self-assembly. In: Cardelli, L., Shih, W. (eds.) DNA 17 2011. LNCS, vol. 6937, pp. 145–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu, W., Zhong, H., Wang, R., Seeman, N.C.: Crystalline two-dimensional DNAorigami arrays. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 50(1) (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lund, K., et al.: Molecular robots guided by prescriptive landscapes. Nature 465 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ma, X., Lombardi, F.: Synthesis of tile sets for DNA self-assembly. IEEE Trans. on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits 27 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ma, X., Lombardi, F.: On the computational complexity of tile set synthesis for DNA self-assembly. IEEE Trans. Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs 56 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Demaine, E.D., Eisenstat, S., Ishaque, M., Winslow, A.: One-Dimensional Staged Self-assembly. In: Cardelli, L., Shih, W. (eds.) DNA 17 2011. LNCS, vol. 6937, pp. 100–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maune, H.T., Han, S., Barish, R.D., Bockrath, M., Rothemund, P.W.K., Winfree, E.: Self-assembly of carbon nanotubes into two-dimensional geometries using DNA origami templates. Nature Nanotechnology 5 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Modi, S., Bhatia, D., Simmel, F.C., Krishnan, Y.: Structural DNA Nanotechnology: From bases to bricks, from structure to function. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 1 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rajendran, A., Endo, M., Katsuda, Y., Hidaka, K., Sugiyama, H.: Programmed twodimensional self-assembly of multiple DNA origami jigsaw pieces. ACS Nano 5(1) (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rothemund, P.W.K.: Folding DNA to create nanoscale shapes and patterns. Nature 440 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rothemund, P.W.K., Winfree, E.: The program-size complexity of self-assembled squares (extended abstract). In: STOC 2000: Proc. 32nd Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Seki, S.: Combinatorial optimizations in pattern assembly (manuscript)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schulman, R., Winfree, E.: Synthesis of Crystals with a Programmable Barrier to Nucleation. Proc. Nat. Ac. Sci. 104 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schulman, R., Yurke, B., Winfree, E.: Robust self-replication of combinatorial information via crystal growth and scission. Proc. Nat. Ac. Sci. 109 (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yan, H., Park, S.H., Finkelstein, G., Reif, J.H., LaBean, T.H.: DNA-templated self-assembly of protein arrays and highly conducive nanowires. Science 301 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhao, Z., Yan, H., Liu, Y.: A route to scale up DNA origami using DNA tiles as folding staples. Angw. Chem. Int. Ed. 49(8) (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eugen Czeizler
    • 1
  • Alexandru Popa
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information and Computer Science, School of ScienceAalto UniversityAaltoFinland
  2. 2.Department of Communications and Networking, School of Electrical EngineeringAalto UniversityAaltoFinland

Personalised recommendations