ISCID News Editor
Moderator
Member # 1417
|
posted 14. December 2004 20:18
PLoS Biology, December 14, 2004
The Emergence of Complexity: Lessons from DNA
Chengde Mao
Abbreviations: 1D, one dimensional; 2D, two dimensional; DX, double crossover; TX, triple crossover; XOR, exclusive OR
Chengde Mao is in the Department of Chemistry, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, United States of America. E-mail: mao@purdue.edu
Published December 14, 2004
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020431
Copyright: © 2004 Chengde Mao. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Citation: Mao C (2004) The Emergence of Complexity: Lessons from DNA. PLoS Biol 2(12): e431.
How did life emerge from a soup of chemicals? How do patterns such as schools of fish form from individuals? How do voting patterns emerge? Such a diverse array of problems seems completely unrelated. However, they all involve “emergence of complexity^.” When individuals come together, they form patterns, structures, and organizations that cannot be discerned from the individuals alone. The study of the emergence of complexity is one of the most active and important areas of research. It is important not only for understanding nature, but also for technological applications, including the fabrication of large-scale integrated nanocircuits using a bottom-up approach, and the preparation of multifunctional “smart” nanomaterials.
DNA^ evolved to be the primary carrier of genetic information because of its extraordinary chemical properties. These same properties also make DNA an excellent system for the study of self-assembly and self-organization. Two complementary molecules of single-stranded DNA have paired bases that bond with each other and form the well-known double helix structure. Two molecules of double-stranded DNA (duplexes) can further associate together if they have complementary single-stranded overhangs (sticky ends). Intermolecular interactions can be precisely predicted by Watson–Crick basepairing (adenine to thymidine and guanine to cytosine). And, these interactions are structurally understood at the atomic level. Given the diversity of the DNA sequences, we can easily engineer a large number of pairs of DNA duplexes that associate with each other with sequence specificity and in a well-defined fashion. This property is not common among other molecular systems. Small organic and inorganic molecular pairs can interact with each other with specificity and in well-defined structures, but the number of such pairs is limited and their chemistry varies greatly. Protein molecules, such as antibody–antigen pairs, have great diversity and high specificity. However, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to predict how proteins interact with each other. In contrast, DNA as a molecular system fulfills all the aforementioned criteria.
...[ISCID News Editor - material removed for brevity]...
One simple example of self-assembly is the formation of two-dimensional (2D) periodic arrays or 2D crystals. This is also one of the greatest successes in the field of DNA self-assembly (Figure 2). The first 2D DNA crystals were assembled from DX motifs (Winfree et al. 1998). In a 2D crystal, each DX molecule contains four sticky ends (A–A′ and B–B′) distributed on its two component duplexes. The complementarity of the sticky ends is designed in such a way that a DX molecule will interact with another four DX molecules through its four sticky ends. Any two DX molecules can interact with each other though only one pair of sticky ends. Any pair of sticky end interactions will position the two DX molecules in a conformation such that no other sticky ends from these two molecules are in sufficient proximity to interact. As a result of this design, regularly ordered 2D arrays have formed (Figure 2). Following similar strategies, others have designed DNA motifs to assemble into 2D arrays, whose symmetries include tetragonal (Yan et al. 2003), pseudohexagonal (Mao et al. 1999; Liu et al. 2004), and hexagonal (Chelyapov el al. 2004; Ding et al. 2004).
Inspired by early theoretical suggestions (Winfree 1998), experimental exploration of aperiodic self-assembly immediately followed. One study applied algorithmic self-assembly to TX molecules (Figure 3) (Mao et al. 2000). The assembling rule “exclusive OR” ( XOR^ ) is encoded in the TX molecules. Consider the value of all inputs and outputs as either 1 or 0. For XOR operations, if two inputs are the same, the output will be 0; otherwise, the output will be 1. If molecules X and Y are the input and output, respectively, Yi molecule takes the input from the Xi and Yi−1 molecules. In other words, the values of the Xi and Yi−1 molecules determine what Y molecule will be incorporated. There are four different types of Y molecules, whose inputs are (1, 1), (1, 0), (0, 1), and (0, 0). These four, and only four, Y molecules are enough to satisfy any input combination. Two C molecules connect the input and output molecules, which is necessary for the characterization but not essential for the self-assembly process. Sticky ends between the X molecules and the C molecules are longer than those between Y molecules and between Y and X or C molecules. Thus, the C and X molecules assemble first to form the inputs because the association between longer sticky ends is more stable than those between the shorter ones. Then the output Y molecules assemble to the assembled C and X molecules. In that study (Mao et al. 2000), two different input combinations were used, and one of them is shown in Figure 3. The resulting DNA structures are periodic with respect to the backbones, but they are aperiodic in their sequences. Though the resulting four-byte one-dimensional (1D) structures are quite simple, this study demonstrated that aperiodic structures are achievable through self-assembly.
Winfree and co-workers in this issue of PLoS Biology have extended the algorithmic self-assembly strategy from 1D to 2D (Rothemund et al. 2004). This achievement is certainly a milestone in the field of self-assembly. It overcomes a great challenge, as the structural complexity dramatically increases from 1D to 2D structures. These researchers have applied the same XOR algorithms to DX molecules in their study and achieved fractal structures, Sierpinski triangles (Figure 4). External inputs are in the bottom row. Each row takes inputs from the row immediately below, and sends the operation outputs to the row immediately above. Each position takes two inputs (identical or non-identical) from lower left and lower right positions, and sends identical output to both upper left and upper right positions. The arrows indicate the direction of information flow, or assembly sequences. In their experiment, the rules are encoded in DX molecules. This study is conceptually straightforward, but the experimental challenges are tremendous. One key challenge is assembly fidelity. The right molecules have to compete with partially matched molecules. The concentrations of the competing molecules further complicate the fidelity issue, as some molecules could be rapidly depleted from the solution. In that sense, the current work is quite stunning even though the assembly is far from perfect.
In principle, a wide range of 2D patterns could be generated with the same set of molecules and the same strategy, changing only the first row of the assembly, which specifies the external inputs. Realization of this goal will critically rely on the elimination of assembly errors, or the introduction of error corrections (Winfree and Bekbolatov 2004).
The current work represents a neat approach to understanding the emergence of complexity. It integrates both simulation and wet chemistry. It also provides a plausible approach to nanofabrications. Over the last decade, a variety of methods have been developed, which use biomacromolecules as templates to fabricate nanostructures (Braun el al. 1998; Douglas and Young 1998; Mucic et al. 1998; Fu et al. 2004). Limited by the complexity of the available biomacromolecular templates, simple nanostructures are the usual result: mostly nanowires, nanoparticles, and simple aggregates of nanoparticles. The current work illustrates the possibility of generating more complicated structures and promises unprecedented structural complexity for nanomaterials.
[Emphases added by ISCID News Editor]
[Link-underlined terms with ^ indicate linked entry in ISCID Encyclopedia of Science and Philosophy as added by ISCID News Editor]
Read the full primer at PLoS Biology
IP: Logged
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic