4.6 Article

Exploring locked nucleic acids as a bio-inspired materials assembly and disassembly tool

期刊

SOFT MATTER
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 2403-2411

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c2sm27021h

关键词

-

资金

  1. Army Research Office [W911NF-09-1-0479]
  2. NSF [DMR-0847436]
  3. Georgia Cancer Coalition Distinguished Scholars Program
  4. Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) Fellowship through Georgia Tech's Center for Drug Design, Development and Delivery (CD4)
  5. Christopher Sanders Fellowship through Georgia Tech's School of Materials Science and Engineering
  6. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  7. Division Of Materials Research [0847436] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oligonucleotides hold great promise as a recognition-based biomaterials assembly and disassembly tool. Chemically modified oligonucleotides such as locked nucleic acids (LNA) provide the added advantage of nuclease resistance. In the current study, we focus on programming the assembly and disassembly of LNA-linked colloidal particles as a function of sequence composition. We find that incorporation of LNA residues (similar to 30%) into either one or both primary hybridization partner strands results in a higher duplex density than for isosequential DNA strands. Mismatched primary hybridization partners with sequence length of 11-15 bases have similar initial primary duplex densities. The displacement of mismatched strands by 15 base-long, perfectly matched competitive target strands, however, does depend on the base length of the original mismatched partner strand. Confocal microscopy confirms that substantial colloidal assembly occurs for both perfectly matched and mismatched LNA sequences that are 9 bases in length. Extensive disassembly for the mismatched case is then triggered through the introduction of 15 base-long competitive target strands. Our work demonstrates that LNA can be used to programmatically assemble and disassemble colloidal particles.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据