pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.21741 · v1 · pith:CWSUHKKYnew · submitted 2026-05-20 · ❄️ cond-mat.soft

Rheology and Programmable Gelation of DNA Origami Polymer Tadpoles

Jennifer Harnett , Saminathan Ramakrishnan , Alice L. B. Pyne , Elizabeth P. Holmes , Davide Michieletto This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 07:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.soft
keywords DNA origamipolymer rheologytopologygelationthermoresponsiveviscoelasticitytadpole polymersannealing
0
0 comments X

The pith

DNA origami polymers with different topologies form distinct reversible gels after annealing.

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

The authors designed and purified linear, circular, and tadpole DNA origami polymers to test how architecture shapes entanglement and flow in concentrated solutions. All three topologies followed the same scaling laws for viscosity and elasticity, which the authors attribute to the chains being relatively short. Upon heating and cooling the bulk material, however, the different shapes produced markedly different responses that the authors link to reversible crosslinking whose strength depends on topology. A sympathetic reader would care because the work identifies a concrete way to make complex fluids change stiffness or flow with temperature simply by choosing polymer shape. If the interpretation holds, it supplies a new handle for building thermoresponsive materials without altering concentration or base chemistry.

Core claim

DNA origami-inspired polymers with linear, circular, and tadpole topologies all obey universal rheological scalings in dense conditions due to their short lengths, but upon thermal annealing they exhibit significantly different behaviours consistent with reversible and topology-dependent crosslinking.

What carries the argument

Topology-dependent reversible crosslinking that occurs during thermal annealing of the tadpole, linear, and circular DNA origami polymers.

If this is right

  • Thermoresponsive gelation in complex fluids can be programmed by polymer architecture alone.
  • Short DNA origami chains can still produce entangled networks whose post-annealing properties are tunable by shape.
  • Reversible crosslinking strength differs between linear, circular, and tadpole forms under the same thermal cycle.
  • Rheological behaviour remains predictable across topologies until annealing activates architecture-specific interactions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same topology-controlled annealing effect could appear in other short biopolymers once length is kept below the regime where universal scaling breaks.
  • Varying the tail length of tadpole structures would provide a direct test of how much the linear segment contributes to crosslinking density.
  • The approach might extend to synthetic polymers if analogous topological features can be engineered to produce reversible junctions on heating.

Load-bearing premise

The differences seen after annealing are caused by the distinct polymer topologies enabling specific reversible crosslinks rather than by variations in concentration, purity, or sequence-specific effects that were not fully controlled.

What would settle it

Strictly equalising concentration and purity across the three topologies and then repeating the annealing experiment; identical rheological changes in all cases would falsify the topology-dependent crosslinking claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.21741 by Alice L. B. Pyne, Davide Michieletto, Elizabeth P. Holmes, Jennifer Harnett, Saminathan Ramakrishnan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Scaling of solution viscosity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Gel electrophoresis showing reconfiguration of tad [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

DNA origami is a powerful method to achieve nanoscale folded structures. Despite rapid improvements in folding and purification methods, DNA origami objects are still often produced in small quantities and studied at single molecule scale. Here, we design simple DNA origami-inspired polymers with complex topologies, and study their rheology and viscoelastic properties in dense conditions. First, we designed and purified topologically distinct DNA nanostructures, linear, circular, and "tadpole" polymers, to evaluate how polymer architecture influences entanglement and rheology. Despite their distinct topologies, we observe that all constructs obeyed universal rheological scalings, likely due to their short length. However, upon thermal annealing in the bulk, the DNA origami-like polymers displayed significantly different behaviours. Our results suggest that DNA origami-like polymers could be used to engineer thermoresponsive behaviours in complex fluids by introducing reversible and topology-dependent crosslinking.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript designs and purifies topologically distinct DNA origami-inspired polymers (linear, circular, and tadpole) to study how architecture influences entanglement and rheology in dense conditions. All constructs are reported to obey universal rheological scalings, attributed to their short length. Upon thermal annealing, the polymers exhibit significantly different behaviors, which the authors attribute to reversible and topology-dependent crosslinking. They conclude that such systems could engineer thermoresponsive behaviors in complex fluids.

Significance. If the annealing differences are shown to arise specifically from topology-dependent reversible crosslinking, the work would be significant for soft matter and DNA nanotechnology. It links nanoscale topological design to bulk viscoelastic and gelation properties, offering a route to programmable materials. The universal scaling observation, if robustly documented with data, would also contribute to understanding short-chain polymer rheology in entangled regimes.

major comments (1)
  1. [Results on thermal annealing] Results on thermal annealing: The central claim that divergent post-annealing behaviors specifically reflect reversible, topology-dependent crosslinking is load-bearing for the engineering suggestion. However, the manuscript does not provide explicit evidence that concentrations, purities, and non-topological sequence interactions were matched or controlled across constructs, leaving the attribution open to alternative explanations such as uncontrolled experimental variables.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claims of universal scalings and distinct annealing behaviors would be strengthened by including at least brief quantitative details such as sample sizes, error bars, or key measured values.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review of our manuscript on DNA origami polymer tadpoles. We address the major comment on the thermal annealing results below, providing clarifications on our experimental controls and agreeing to enhance the manuscript with additional details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Results on thermal annealing: The central claim that divergent post-annealing behaviors specifically reflect reversible, topology-dependent crosslinking is load-bearing for the engineering suggestion. However, the manuscript does not provide explicit evidence that concentrations, purities, and non-topological sequence interactions were matched or controlled across constructs, leaving the attribution open to alternative explanations such as uncontrolled experimental variables.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee pointing out the need for explicit evidence on experimental controls. In the original manuscript, we prepared all polymer constructs at the same mass concentration of 5 wt% to ensure comparable conditions for entanglement and gelation. Purity of each topology was confirmed via gel electrophoresis, with all samples showing high purity (>85%) and no significant differences between constructs. The DNA sequences for the core origami units and the sticky ends responsible for crosslinking are identical across the linear, circular, and tadpole topologies; the topological differences arise solely from the ligation and folding strategies used during assembly. This design isolates the effect of topology on crosslinking efficiency. However, to make these controls more explicit as requested, we will add a new supplementary figure showing the concentration calibration curves and purity gels for all constructs, along with a brief description in the methods section. We also note that non-annealed controls showed no gelation, supporting the reversible crosslinking interpretation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; experimental claims are self-contained

full rationale

The paper reports experimental observations of rheology and annealing in DNA origami-inspired polymers of linear, circular, and tadpole topologies. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or first-principles predictions appear in the provided text. The central suggestion regarding thermoresponsive behaviors follows directly from measured differences in post-annealing properties rather than reducing to any input by construction, self-definition, or self-citation chain. The work is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks with no load-bearing circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the central claim implicitly assumes standard polymer physics models for entanglement and that observed gelation differences are topology-driven.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5688 in / 1143 out tokens · 49170 ms · 2026-05-22T07:54:59.175777+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    Despite their distinct topologies, we observe that all constructs obeyed universal rheological scalings... upon thermal annealing... topology-dependent gelation pathways... reversible and topology-dependent crosslinking.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    C. M. Schroeder, R. Everaers, K. Ioannidou, and D. Vlassopoulos, Journal of Rheology70, 183 (2026)

    work page 2026

  2. [2]

    Y. Doi, A. Takano, Y. Takahashi, and Y. Matsushita, Macromolecules48, 8667 (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Y. Doi, A. Takano, Y. Takahashi, and Y. Matsushita, Soft Matter16, 8720 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Kapnistos, M

    M. Kapnistos, M. Lang, D. Vlassopoulos, W. Pyckhout- Hintzen, D. Richter, D. Cho, T. Chang, and M. Rubin- stein, Nature materials7, 997 (2008)

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Gooßen, A

    S. Gooßen, A. Br´ as, M. Krutyeva, M. Sharp, P. Falus, A. Feoktystov, U. Gasser, W. Pyckhout-Hintzen, A. Wis- chnewski, and D. Richter, Physical Review Letters113, 168302 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Deguchi and E

    T. Deguchi and E. Uehara, Polymers9, 13 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Cates and J

    M. Cates and J. Deutsch, Journal de Physique47, 2121 (1986)

    work page 1986

  8. [8]

    Understanding the dynamics of rings in the melt in terms of annealed tree model

    J. Smrek and A. Y. Grosberg, Journal of Physics Condensed Matter27(2015), 10.1088/0953- 8984/27/6/064117, arXiv:1409.1483

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0953- 2015

  9. [9]

    J. D. Halverson, W. B. Lee, G. S. Grest, A. Y. Grosberg, and K. Kremer, J. Chem. Phys.134, 204904 (2011)

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    J. D. Halverson, W. B. Lee, G. S. Grest, A. Y. Grosberg, and K. Kremer, The Journal of chemical physics134, 204905 (2011)

    work page 2011

  11. [11]

    J. D. Halverson, J. Smrek, K. Kremer, and A. Y. Gros- berg, Reports on Progress in Physics77(2014)

    work page 2014

  12. [12]

    T. Ge, S. Panyukov, and M. Rubinstein, Macromolecules 49, 708 (2016)

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

    P. G. de Gennes,Scaling concepts in polymer physics (Cornell University Press, 1979)

    work page 1979

  14. [14]

    The Theory of Polymer Dy- namics,

    M. Doi and S. Edwards, “The Theory of Polymer Dy- namics,” (1988)

    work page 1988

  15. [15]

    Michieletto, D

    D. Michieletto, D. Marenduzzo, E. Orlandini, G. Alexan- der, and M. Turner, ACS Macro Lett.3, 255 (2014)

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    D. G. Tsalikis, V. G. Mavrantzas, and D. Vlassopoulos, ACS Macro Letters5, 755 (2016). 11

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    A Topologically Driven Glass in Ring Polymers

    D. Michieletto and M. S. Turner, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA113, 5195 (2016), arXiv:arXiv:1510.05625v1

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    Glassiness and Heterogeneous Dynamics in Dense Solutions of Ring Polymers

    D. Michieletto, N. Nahali, and A. Rosa, Physical Review Letters119, 197801 (2017), arXiv:1703.09688

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  19. [19]

    J. Wang, T. C. O’Connor, G. S. Grest, and T. Ge, Physical Review Letters128(2022), 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.128.237801

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2022

  20. [20]

    T. C. O’Connor, T. Ge, M. Rubinstein, and G. S. Grest, Physical Review Letters124, 27801 (2020), arXiv:1910.14666

    work page arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Wijesekera, D

    A. Wijesekera, D. L. Vigil, and T. Ge, Macromolecules 57, 5092 (2024)

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    T. C. O’Connor, T. Ge, and G. S. Grest, Journal of Rheology66, 49 (2022)

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Parisi, J

    D. Parisi, J. Ahn, T. Chang, D. Vlassopoulos, and M. Rubinstein, Macromolecules53, 1685 (2020)

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    A. Rosa, J. Smrek, M. S. Turner, and D. Michieletto, ACS Macro Letters9, 743 (2020)

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    K. F. Wagenbauer, F. A. Engelhardt, E. Stahl, V. K. Hechtl, P. St¨ ommer, F. Seebacher, L. Meregalli, P. Ket- terer, T. Gerling, and H. Dietz, ChemBioChem18, 1873 (2017)

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    A. Pyne, R. Thompson, C. Leung, D. Roy, and B. W. Hoogenboom, Small10, 3257 (2014)

    work page 2014

  27. [27]

    Dna processing in gwyddion,

    A. Pyne, “Dna processing in gwyddion,” (2020)

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    T. G. Mason, Rheologica acta39, 371 (2000)

    work page 2000

  29. [29]

    Michieletto, M

    D. Michieletto, M. Baiesi, E. Orlandini, and M. S. Turner, Soft matter11, 1100 (2015)

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    Rubinstein and R

    M. Rubinstein and R. H. Colby,Polymer Physics(Oxford University Press, 2003)

    work page 2003

  31. [31]

    Des Cloizeaux, Epl5, 437 (1988)

    J. Des Cloizeaux, Epl5, 437 (1988)

    work page 1988

  32. [32]

    Michieletto and T

    D. Michieletto and T. Sakaue, ACS Macro Letters , 129 (2021), 2012.14777

    work page arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Takahashi, Y

    Y. Takahashi, Y. Isono, I. Noda, and M. Nagasawa, Macromolecules18, 1002 (1985)

    work page 1985

  34. [34]

    Raspaud, D

    E. Raspaud, D. Lairez, and M. Adam, Macromolecules 28, 927 (1995)

    work page 1995

  35. [35]

    Musti, J

    R. Musti, J. Sikorav, D. Lairez, G. Jannink, and M. Adam, Comptes rendus de l’Acad´ emie des sciences. S´ erie II, M´ ecanique, physique, chimie, astronomie320, 599 (1995)

    work page 1995

  36. [36]

    L. M. Bravo-Anaya, M. Rinaudo, and F. A. S. Mart´ ınez, Polymers8(2016), 10.3390/polym8020051

    work page doi:10.3390/polym8020051 2016

  37. [37]

    Banik, D

    S. Banik, D. Kong, M. J. San Francisco, and G. B. McKenna, Macromolecules54, 8632 (2021)

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    Harnett, S

    J. Harnett, S. Weir, and D. Michieletto, Soft Matter20, 3980 (2024)

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    R. M. Robertson and D. E. Smith, Macromolecules40, 3373 (2007)

    work page 2007

  40. [40]

    Zhou and C

    Y. Zhou and C. M. Schroeder, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 267801 (2018)

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    T. G. Mason, A. Dhople, and D. Wirtz, Macromolecules 31, 3600 (1998)

    work page 1998

  42. [42]

    Y. A. Fosado, J. Howard, S. Weir, A. Noy, M. C. Leake, and D. Michieletto, Physical Review Letters130, 3 (2023), 2205.03510

    work page arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    R. M. Robertson and D. E. Smith, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences104, 4824 (2007)

    work page 2007

  44. [44]

    Rossi-Gendron, F

    C. Rossi-Gendron, F. El Fakih, L. Bourdon, K. Nakazawa, J. Finkel, N. Triomphe, L. Chocron, M. Endo, H. Sugiyama, G. Bellot, M. Morel, S. Rudiuk, and D. Baigl, Nature Nanotechnology18, 1311 (2023)

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    SantaLucia Jr, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences95, 1460 (1998)

    J. SantaLucia Jr, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences95, 1460 (1998)

    work page 1998

  46. [46]

    C. A. Brackley, J. Johnson, D. Michieletto, A. N. Mo- rozov, M. Nicodemi, P. R. Cook, and D. Marenduzzo, Physical Review Letters119, 138101 (2017)

    work page 2017

  47. [47]

    M. A. Ubertini, J. Smrek, and A. Rosa, Macromolecules 55, 10641 (2022)

    work page 2022