Transformable Plasmonic Helix with Swinging Gold Nanoparticles

Andreas Peil; Denis Garoli; Luis M. Liz-Marz\'an; Na Liu; Pengfei Zhan; Roman Krahne; Xiaoyang Duan

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 22 references

Transformable Plasmonic Helix with Swinging Gold Nanoparticles

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read DNA swingarms tether gold nanoparticles to a shared origami shaft and swing them in large leaps, so the same assembly can be reconfigured between left- and right-handed plasmonic helices with opposite circular dichroism.

desk verdict A solid demonstration of a reconfigurable DNA-origami plasmonic helix with swingarm-driven AuNP translocations; the system-level design is new, but the 'high fidelity' claim needs quantitative back-up. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11533 v1 pith:7BXRH2EU submitted 2025-06-13 physics.bio-ph physics.optics

Andreas Peil , Pengfei Zhan , Xiaoyang Duan , Roman Krahne , Denis Garoli , Luis M. Liz-Marzán , Na Liu This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.bio-phphysics.optics

keywords DNAorigamigoldnanoparticlesplasmonichelixcirculardichroismswingarmtoehold-mediatedstranddisplacementchiralplasmonicsreconfigurablenanostructures

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims to build a reconfigurable plasmonic helix in which six gold nanoparticles are permanently tethered to flexible DNA 'swingarms' on a 24-helix DNA origami bundle. Instead of walking stepwise along a track, each nanoparticle is directly swung to a chosen foothold in one jump, with small steps of 4.2 nm and large steps of 12.6 nm, and the largest translocation reaching about 25.2 nm. By adding DNA fuels that activate or deactivate footholds through toehold-mediated strand displacement, the whole assembly can be switched among six defined states, from a left-handed helix to a right-handed helix and back. The circular dichroism spectra are bisignate, invert between the two handedness extremes, and match finite-element simulations, supporting the claim that cooperative rearrangement of the nanoparticles, rather than template reconfiguration, drives the optical change.

What carries the argument

The key object is the DNA swingarm: a set of DNA strands extending from the origami, each with a flexible poly-thymine segment and a capture domain for one gold nanoparticle. Footholds on the origami are deactivated by blocking strands and activated by releasing strands through toehold-mediated strand displacement; a permanently tethered AuNP can therefore be directed to a chosen foothold in one jump, with small steps of 4.2 nm (type A rows, two binding sites) and large steps of 12.6 nm (type B rows, four binding sites), and a largest translocation of about 25.2 nm. Because the particle never leaves its swingarm, detachment is suppressed while the particle is being transported.

What would settle it

Quantify the fraction of gold nanoparticles at their intended foothold after each fuel addition, for example by counting TEM images of individual structures or by band-shift gel analysis of partially moved states. If a substantial fraction of particles remains at the swingarm position or at a wrong foothold, the ensemble CD signal would be a mixture of states rather than the designed helix, and the claim of high-fidelity programmable translocation would fail. A second check: if toehold-mediated displacement is not specific, adding a releasing strand for one foothold should change the CD spectrum even when that foothold's target particle is absent; the rolling-without-swingarm control tests only the no-swingarm case, not the swingarm route's completeness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that multiple closely spaced gold nanoparticles on one DNA origami shaft can be transported directly through space via DNA swingarms, without undergoing consecutive stepwise movements. Each nanoparticle stays tied to its swingarm while footholds are activated or deactivated, so a particle can be moved to a distant binding site in a single leap without detaching. This turns a six-particle assembly on a 24-helix bundle into a switchable chiral object: state I is a left-handed helix, state VI is right-handed, and intermediate states are reached by moving only the relevant subset of particles clockwise or counterclockwise. The resulting circular dichroism spectra are bisignate and invert between the two handedness extremes, in agreement with finite-element simulations, and the same swingarm scheme works on a dimerized, higher-order origami architecture.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every toehold-mediated translocation moves its gold nanoparticle to the intended foothold with high enough yield, so that the measured circular dichroism reflects the designed helix rather than a mixture of partially translocated or detached states.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Reversible transitions among states I-VI allow the same DNA-origami object to be cycled between left- and right-handed helices, with the CD bisignate profile inverting accordingly.
Gold nanoparticles can be translocated by up to about 25.2 nm in one step, so closely spaced particles can be moved in parallel without rolling through intermediate footholds or detaching.
Because foot strands differ between adjacent rows, the scheme avoids nonspecific cross-talk between neighboring particles during simultaneous motion.
The swingarm route is not limited to monomers: dimerized origami bundles also switch between left-handed and right-handed states with nearly mirrored CD spectra, suggesting higher-order architectures are feasible.
The possibility to translocate optical elements into multiple configurations offers a route to encode information at high density in reconfigurable plasmonic structures.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the per-translocation fidelity is as high as implied, the swingarm method could scale to denser or larger origami lattices, since the number of fuel additions no longer scales with the number of intermediate steps.
One could test the 'no intermediate foothold' claim directly with liquid-cell TEM or single-particle fluorescence tracking of one AuNP during a translocation; a trajectory that pauses at intermediate sites would break the direct-transport picture.
The near-zero CD at state 0 could serve as a built-in control for state purity: any residual bisignate signal at state 0 would indicate incomplete blocking or unintended binding, giving a quick ensemble-level quality metric.
The same swinging-arm principle might be applied to other nano-objects, such as quantum dots or anisotropic nanoparticles, to create reconfigurable chiroptical or directional-emission devices.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The paper is a solid experimental demonstration of a reconfigurable DNA-origami plasmonic helix. The swingarm mechanism itself comes from earlier work (Refs 19a/b), but applying it to move several closely spaced AuNPs in parallel on a shared origami shaft, with two step sizes and cooperative state changes, is new. So is the designed six-state LH-to-RH switch with corresponding CD inversion. That system-level contribution is real.

The design is carefully thought through: type A rows for 4.2 nm small steps, type B rows with longer swingarms for 12.6 nm large leaps, and toehold-mediated strand displacement for reversible foothold activation. TEM images at each state support the assigned geometries, and the CD spectra follow the expected narrative—near-zero at state 0, bisignate LH at state I, weakening through II–III, then a growing RH signal through IV–VI. The dimer extension, though only showing states 0, I, and VI, is a nice bonus.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The main text claims 'high fidelity' and 'good agreement with theoretical predictions' without quantitative support. There are no error bars on the CD spectra and no TEM-based yield or state-purity statistics; the reader sees representative images, not a count. The FEM simulations presumably assume perfect occupancy at designed positions, so the agreement could hide a mixture of intended states and partially translocated structures, particularly for the weakly bisignate intermediates. The arXiv version also omits the SI, so DNA sequences and simulation parameters aren't checkable. All of this is addressable: the authors should add replicate CD measurements, TEM counts (n>100 per state), and the SI.

The citation pattern is honest; the swingarm credit is explicit. I see no circularity or invented entities.

Bottom line: this is a competent experimental paper that advances dynamic DNA nanophotonics. The precision of the claims currently exceeds the evidence, but the core LH/RH switching is convincing. I would send it to peer review and bring it to a reading group.

Yours,

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a DNA-origami-based plasmonic helix in which six gold nanoparticles (AuNPs), each tethered to a flexible DNA swingarm, can be translocated in large leaps around a 24-helix bundle via toehold-mediated strand displacement. The authors define six conformational states (I-VI) that take the assembly from a left-handed to a right-handed helix through cooperative, sequence-specific repositioning of the AuNPs. They characterize the structures by gel electrophoresis and TEM (including class averages), and follow the structural transformations by circular dichroism (CD) spectroscopy, comparing the experimental spectra with finite-element-method simulations. A dimer version of the architecture is also demonstrated. The central claims are that the swingarm mechanism enables direct, high-fidelity, programmable AuNP translocations without consecutive stepwise movements, and that the measured CD spectra are in good agreement with theoretical predictions.

Significance. If the fidelity and programmability claims are substantiated, this work provides a valuable new tool for dynamic plasmonic nanoarchitectures: the swingarm strategy allows multiple closely spaced AuNPs to be moved over large distances without detachment, and the demonstrated LH-to-RH transformation with an accompanying CD sign inversion is a clear proof of concept. The manuscript is strengthened by the use of multiple complementary characterization methods (gel electrophoresis, TEM with class averaging, CD spectroscopy, and FEM simulations) and by the extension to higher-order dimer structures. The main weakness is that the quantitative basis for 'high fidelity' and 'good agreement with theory' is not established, because the ensemble CD spectra lack error bars and the TEM analysis is qualitative.

major comments (4)

[Figure 4c and CD spectroscopy section] The experimental CD spectra are presented as single traces without replicate measurements, error bars, or a quantitative measure of state purity. Because the ensemble CD signal is a linear superposition of the contributions from all structures present, the observed spectra at intermediate states II-IV, where the bisignate amplitude is small, could equally arise from a mixture of a fully transformed state and a substantial fraction of untransformed or partially transformed structures. This ambiguity is load-bearing for the 'high fidelity' and 'programmable' claims made in the abstract and conclusion. Please provide at least three independent replicate CD spectra per state (with shaded error ranges) and/or a quantitative TEM analysis (e.g., n > 100 per state) reporting the fraction of structures that adopt the intended foothold configuration after each fuel addition.
[Figure 4d and Experimental Section (SI)] The FEM simulations are described only in the SI, and the main text states 'good agreement' without reporting the assumed yield, particle size distribution, or shape inhomogeneity. The simulations presumably assume 100% of the designed state with ideal 18 nm spheres at the designed positions, so agreement with the experimental CD may be partly self-consistent rather than a stringent test. To rule out the alternative explanation that the experimental CD is produced by a mixture of states, please report simulated spectra for partial transformation yields (e.g., 50%, 70%, 90%) and show that they do not reproduce the observed curves, or otherwise provide a quantitative fit metric (e.g., chi-square) between experiment and simulation.
[Figure 3b/c and 'First, the swingarms allow for the assembly...' paragraph] The TEM images are representative and the class-averaged insets are helpful, but no quantitative statistics are given for the fraction of structures with all AuNPs correctly attached to their intended footholds in each state. The claim that 'the swingarms enable reliable structural reconfigurations' and the conclusion's 'high fidelity' statement require a quantitative measure of translocation success. Please add per-state TEM counting statistics for the initial state and after each transformation route, or an alternative gel-based or optical quantification of yield, and compare quantitatively with the control experiment in Supplementary Figure S4.
[Conclusion and Figure 1b] The manuscript states that 'all states are fully reversible among each other upon addition of the corresponding DNA fuels' and that the system can be 'programmably' transformed, but no repeated cycling experiments are shown. Since reversibility is part of the programmability claim, please include at least two full transformation cycles (e.g., I -> VI -> I) with CD or TEM evidence, demonstrating that the yield and CD response are maintained. If such data are not available, the claim of reversibility should be appropriately qualified.

minor comments (5)

[Figure 1b] The top-view schematics in Figure 1b do not include state 0, although state 0 is described in the text as the initial state with AuNPs tied only to the swingarms. Adding state 0 to the schematic would help readers follow the transformation sequence.
[Figure 4b] The text refers to 'TEM images of representative structures at different states after Au growth' but the scale bars are only given in the caption and are not visible in the figure as reproduced; please ensure the scale bars are clearly legible in the final version.
[Abstract and conclusion] The phrase 'in good agreement with theoretical predictions' appears in the abstract, results, and conclusion without any quantitative measure of agreement. Please either define a goodness-of-fit metric or qualify the statement to 'qualitative agreement'.
[Results and Discussion, CD spectroscopy] The text says 'the CD response was close to zero within the wavelength range of interest' for state 0; it would be clearer to show this zero-baseline in each CD panel as a reference, rather than only in the same panel as the state I-VI spectra.
[Keywords] The keywords are separated by bullet symbols in the manuscript; please format them as a comma-separated list according to the journal style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the FEM spectra are a forward model from designed geometry, and the swingarm mechanism rests on external prior work, not a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is experimental: designed DNA origami states, AuNP translocations via swingarms, TEM characterization, and CD spectroscopy. The only 'theoretical prediction' is a finite-element simulation of CD spectra for the designed states. The main text reports no parameter fitting of the simulation to the CD data; the simulation inputs are the designed helix geometry and the measured average AuNP diameter of about 18 nm. This is a forward model, not an inversion of the measured CD, so the agreement is not equivalent to the input by construction. The swingarm concept is cited to external groups (Fu et al. 2014; Chen et al. 2018), and the authors' own previous citations are background context, not an imported uniqueness theorem or an ansatz smuggled in by self-citation. TEM-based state assignment and the simulation do share the same design intent, which makes the agreement partly self-consistent, but that is a caveat about independent validation rather than a circular derivation. Unquantified state purity and missing error bars are robustness concerns, not circularity. No self-definitional step, fitted-input-called-prediction step, or self-citation carrying the central claim was identified, so no circular step is quoted.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data in the main text: the 18 nm AuNP size is a measured average, and the swingarm lengths and foothold spacings are design choices. The only assumptions are standard DNA nanostructure behavior and the validity of FEM for plasmonic CD. No new physical entities are introduced; the swingarm is a known DNA construct from prior work.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The DNA origami 24-helix bundle assembles with the stated dimensions and with footholds and swingarms at the intended positions.
Used throughout the design (Figures 1a, 2a); TEM confirms overall shape but not base-level positions.
domain assumption Toehold-mediated strand displacement specifically activates and deactivates each foothold without cross-talk, and the AuNP foot strands hybridize only to their intended targets.
Mechanism in Figures 2a-c; sequence design described in SI Tables S8 and S9, which are not in the preprint.
domain assumption A finite element method with bulk gold optical constants and spheres of the measured average diameter (about 18 nm) is sufficient to reproduce the experimental CD spectra.
Simulations in Figure 4d are stated to agree with experiments; exact parameters are in the SI, which is not provided.
domain assumption Ensemble CD spectroscopy in solution reports the average handed geometry of the assembled helices, with state 0 serving as a near-zero baseline.
Used to assign LH and RH signatures to states I and VI (Figure 4c).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Transformable Plasmonic Helix with Swinging Gold Nanoparticles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7BXRH2EU

@misc{pith2026250611533,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Transformable Plasmonic Helix with Swinging Gold Nanoparticles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7BXRH2EU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11533}
}

read the original abstract

Control over multiple optical elements that can be dynamically rearranged to yield substantial three-dimensional structural transformations is of great importance to realize reconfigurable plasmonic nanoarchitectures with sensitive and distinct optical feedback. In this work, we demonstrate a transformable plasmonic helix system, in which multiple gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) can be directly transported by DNA swingarms to target positions without undergoing consecutive stepwise movements. The swingarms allow for programmable AuNP translocations in large leaps within plasmonic nanoarchitectures, giving rise to tailored circular dichroism spectra. Our work provides an instructive bottom-up solution to building complex dynamic plasmonic systems, which can exhibit prominent optical responses through cooperative rearrangements of the constituent optical elements with high fidelity and programmability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11533 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** a illustrates the plasmonic helix, which is a model chiral system with multiple AuNPs arranged in a helical geometry. The DNA origami shaft is a 24-helix bundle (16 nm in diameter, 107 nm in length), which provides overall 16 binding sites distributed in six rows. Each binding site contains a set of DNA footholds. The numbers of binding sites in these six rows from the top to the bottom are 2, 4, 2, 2, 4, and 2 acco… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** (a) Schematic of the AuNP interactions with the swingarm and the DNA footholds. Blocking and releasing strands for deactivation and activation of the foothold are illustrated (for details see the main text). (b) Rows (1, 3, 4, 6) with two binding sites are grouped as type A (pink). Rows (2, 5) with four binding sites are grouped as type B (blue). The AuNP in type A can be guided by the swingarm to reach the left and… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** (a) Agarose gel electrophoresis image of type A structures comprising AuNPs 1, 3, 4, and 6, as well as type B structures comprising AuNPs 2 and 5. The colour-framed gel bands contain the corresponding structures. (b) Overview and averaged (insets) TEM images of type A structures and the different AuNP rearrangement routes. (c) Overview and averaged (insets) TEM images of type B structures and the different AuNP rear… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Overview and averaged (insets) TEM images of plasmonic helices and different AuNP rearrangement routes. Scale bars, 100 nm. Inset: scale bars, 20 nm. (b) TEM images of representative structures at different states after Au growth. (c) Experimental and (d) calculated CD…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (a) Dimerization strategy. Two different origami monomers (A and B) are created with different modifications at the head and tail ends for mutual binding. (b) Agarose gel electrophoresis image of the dimer structures after AuNP assembly. The monomer band is shown as a …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[1]

a) R. D. Vale, Cell 2003, 112, 467-480; b) M. G. van den Heuvel, C. Dekker, Science 2007, 317, 333-336; c) R. H. Fillingame, Science 1999, 286, 1687-1688; d) G. Woehlke, M. Schliwa, Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2000, 1, 50-58; e) F. J. Nedelec, T. Surrey, A. C. Maggs, S. Leibler, Nature 1997, 389, 305-308

work page 2003
[2]

DNA- FAIRYLIGHTS

Physics Institute University of Stuttgart Pfaffenwaldring 57, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany E-mail: na.liu@pi2.uni-stuttgart.de [b] A. Peil, Dr. P. Zhan, Dr. X. Duan, Prof. Dr. N. Liu Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research Heisenbergstraße 1, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany [c] Prof. R. Krahne, Dr. D. Garoli Instituto Italiano di Tecnologia Via Morego 30, 1616...

work page 2020
[3]

K. J. Verhey, T. A. Rapoport, Trends Biochem. Sci. 2001, 26, 545-550

work page 2001
[4]

a) P. W. Rothemund, Nature 2006, 440, 297-302; b) S. M. Douglas, H. Dietz, T. Liedl, B. Hogberg, F. Graf, W. M. Shih, Nature 2009, 459, 414-418; c) H. Dietz, S. M. Douglas, W. M. Shih, Science 2009, 325, 725-730; d) S. M. Douglas, A. H. Marblestone, S. Teerapittayanon, A. Vazquez, G. M. Church, W. M. Shih, Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37, 5001-5006; e) Y. Ke,...

work page 2006
[5]

a) Y. Chen, M. S. Wang, C. D. Mao, Angew Chem Int Edit 2004, 43, 3554-3557; b) P. Yin, H. Yan, X. G. Daniell, A. J. Turberfield, J. H. Reif, Angew Chem Int Edit 2004, 43, 4906-4911; c) T. Omabegho, R. Sha, N. C. Seeman, Science 2009, 324, 67-71; d) K. Lund, A. J. Manzo, N. Dabby, N. Michelotti, A. Johnson-Buck, J. Nangreave, S. Taylor, R. J. Pei, M. N. St...

work page 2004
[6]

Ketterer, E

a) P. Ketterer, E. M. Willner, H. Dietz, Sci. Adv. 2016, 2, e1501209; b) T. Tomaru, Y. Suzuki, I. Kawamata, S. M. Nomura, S. Murata, Chem. Commun. (Camb) 2017, 53, 7716-7719; c) E. Kopperger, J. List, S. Madhira, F. Rothfischer, D. C. Lamb, F. C. Simmel, Science 2018, 359, 296-300; d) S. Lauback, K. R. Mattioli, A. E. Marras, M. Armstrong, T. P. Rudibaugh...

work page arXiv 2016
[7]

a) H. Gu, J. Chao, S. J. Xiao, N. C. Seeman, Nature 2010, 465, 202-205; b) F. C. Simmel, Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2012, 23, 516-521

work page 2010
[8]

a) J. S. Shin, N. A. Pierce, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 10834-10835; b) A. J. Thubagere, W. Li, R. F. Johnson, Z. Chen, S. Doroudi, Y. L. Lee, G. Izatt, S. Wittman, N. Srinivas, D. Woods, E. Winfree, L. Qian, Science 2017, 357, eaan6558; c) P. Zhan, K. Jahnke, N. Liu, K. Gopfrich, Nat. Chem. 2022, 14, 958-963; d) R. Ibusuki, T. Morishita, A. Furuta, S. ...

work page 2004

Show all 22 references

[9]

Kuzyk, R

a) A. Kuzyk, R. Jungmann, G. P. Acuna, N. Liu, ACS Photonics 2018, 5, 1151-1163; b) N. Liu, T. Liedl, Chem. Rev. 2018, 118, 3032-3053

2018
[10]

Y. Hao, Y. Li, L. Song, Z. Deng, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2021, 143, 3065-3069

2021
[11]

Amendola, R

V. Amendola, R. Pilot, M. Frasconi, O. M. Marago, M. A. Iati, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2017, 29, 203002

2017
[12]

a) K. L. Kelly, E. Coronado, L. L. Zhao, G. C. Schatz, J Phys Chem B 2003, 107, 668-677; b) E. Prodan, C. Radloff, N. J. Halas, P. Nordlander, Science 2003, 302, 419-422

2003
[13]

Kuzyk, R

a) A. Kuzyk, R. Schreiber, Z. Fan, G. Pardatscher, E. M. Roller, A. Hogele, F. C. Simmel, A. O. Govorov, T. Liedl, Nature 2012, 483, 311-314; b) M. K. Nguyen, A. Kuzyk, ACS Nano 2019, 13, 13615-13619; c) M. J. Urban, C. Shen, X. T. Kong, C. Zhu, A. O. Govorov, Q. Wang, M. Hent...

2012
[14]

a) Z. Fan, A. O. Govorov, Nano Lett 2010, 10, 2580-2587; b) M. Hentschel, M. Schaferling, X. Duan, H. Giessen, N. Liu, Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1602735

2010
[15]

Funck, F

a) T. Funck, F. Nicoli, A. Kuzyk, T. Liedl, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2018, 57, 13495-13498; b) J. Dong, M. Wang, Y. Zhou, C. Zhou, Q. Wang, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2020, 59, 15038-15042

2018
[16]

a) L. X. Chao Zhou, Xiaoyang Duan, Maximilian J. Urban, and Na Liu, Nano Lett. 2018, 18, 7395–7399; b) Y. Huang, M. K. Nguyen, A. K. Natarajan, V. H. Nguyen, A. Kuzyk, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 44221-44225

2018
[17]

Kuzyk, M

a) A. Kuzyk, M. J. Urban, A. Idili, F. Ricci, N. Liu, Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1602803; b) K. Gopfrich, M. J. Urban, C. Frey, I. Platzman, J. P. Spatz, N. Liu, Nano Lett. 2020, 20, 1571- 1577

2017
[18]

Funck T., Liedl T., Bae W., Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3006

2019
[19]

L. Xin, C. Zhou, X. Duan, N. Liu, Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 5394

2019
[20]

a) J. Fu, Y. R. Yang, A. Johnson-Buck, M. Liu, Y. Liu, N. G. Walter, N. W. Woodbury, H. Yan, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2014, 9, 531-536; b) Y. Chen, G. Ke, Y. Ma, Z. Zhu, M. Liu, Y. Liu, H. Yan, C. J. Yang, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018, 140, 8990-8996

2014
[21]

M. Dass, F. N. Gur, K. Kolataj, M. J. Urban, T. Liedl, J. Phys. Chem. C Nanomater Interfaces 2021, 125, 5969- 5981

2021
[22]

Ditlbacher, B

a) H. Ditlbacher, B. Lamprecht, A. Leitner, F. R. Aussenegg, Opt. Lett. 2000, 25, 563-565; b) A. Doricchi, C. M. Platnich, A. Gimpel, F. Horn, M. Earle, G. Lanzavecchia, A. L. Cortajarena, L. M. Liz-Marzan, N. Liu, R. Heckel, R. N. Grass, R. Krahne, U. F. Keyser, D. Garoli, AC...

2000 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

a) R. D. Vale, Cell 2003, 112, 467-480; b) M. G. van den Heuvel, C. Dekker, Science 2007, 317, 333-336; c) R. H. Fillingame, Science 1999, 286, 1687-1688; d) G. Woehlke, M. Schliwa, Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2000, 1, 50-58; e) F. J. Nedelec, T. Surrey, A. C. Maggs, S. Leibler, Nature 1997, 389, 305-308

work page 2003

[2] [2]

DNA- FAIRYLIGHTS

Physics Institute University of Stuttgart Pfaffenwaldring 57, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany E-mail: na.liu@pi2.uni-stuttgart.de [b] A. Peil, Dr. P. Zhan, Dr. X. Duan, Prof. Dr. N. Liu Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research Heisenbergstraße 1, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany [c] Prof. R. Krahne, Dr. D. Garoli Instituto Italiano di Tecnologia Via Morego 30, 1616...

work page 2020

[3] [3]

K. J. Verhey, T. A. Rapoport, Trends Biochem. Sci. 2001, 26, 545-550

work page 2001

[4] [4]

a) P. W. Rothemund, Nature 2006, 440, 297-302; b) S. M. Douglas, H. Dietz, T. Liedl, B. Hogberg, F. Graf, W. M. Shih, Nature 2009, 459, 414-418; c) H. Dietz, S. M. Douglas, W. M. Shih, Science 2009, 325, 725-730; d) S. M. Douglas, A. H. Marblestone, S. Teerapittayanon, A. Vazquez, G. M. Church, W. M. Shih, Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37, 5001-5006; e) Y. Ke,...

work page 2006

[5] [5]

a) Y. Chen, M. S. Wang, C. D. Mao, Angew Chem Int Edit 2004, 43, 3554-3557; b) P. Yin, H. Yan, X. G. Daniell, A. J. Turberfield, J. H. Reif, Angew Chem Int Edit 2004, 43, 4906-4911; c) T. Omabegho, R. Sha, N. C. Seeman, Science 2009, 324, 67-71; d) K. Lund, A. J. Manzo, N. Dabby, N. Michelotti, A. Johnson-Buck, J. Nangreave, S. Taylor, R. J. Pei, M. N. St...

work page 2004

[6] [6]

Ketterer, E

a) P. Ketterer, E. M. Willner, H. Dietz, Sci. Adv. 2016, 2, e1501209; b) T. Tomaru, Y. Suzuki, I. Kawamata, S. M. Nomura, S. Murata, Chem. Commun. (Camb) 2017, 53, 7716-7719; c) E. Kopperger, J. List, S. Madhira, F. Rothfischer, D. C. Lamb, F. C. Simmel, Science 2018, 359, 296-300; d) S. Lauback, K. R. Mattioli, A. E. Marras, M. Armstrong, T. P. Rudibaugh...

work page arXiv 2016

[7] [7]

a) H. Gu, J. Chao, S. J. Xiao, N. C. Seeman, Nature 2010, 465, 202-205; b) F. C. Simmel, Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2012, 23, 516-521

work page 2010

[8] [8]

a) J. S. Shin, N. A. Pierce, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 10834-10835; b) A. J. Thubagere, W. Li, R. F. Johnson, Z. Chen, S. Doroudi, Y. L. Lee, G. Izatt, S. Wittman, N. Srinivas, D. Woods, E. Winfree, L. Qian, Science 2017, 357, eaan6558; c) P. Zhan, K. Jahnke, N. Liu, K. Gopfrich, Nat. Chem. 2022, 14, 958-963; d) R. Ibusuki, T. Morishita, A. Furuta, S. ...

work page 2004