Li Huey Tan1, Hang Xing, Yi Lu. 1. Department of Chemistry, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign , Urbana, Illinois 61801, United States.
Abstract
CONSPECTUS: Several properties of nanomaterials, such as morphologies (e.g., shapes and surface structures) and distance dependent properties (e.g., plasmonic and quantum confinement effects), make nanomaterials uniquely qualified as potential choices for future applications from catalysis to biomedicine. To realize the full potential of these nanomaterials, it is important to demonstrate fine control of the morphology of individual nanoparticles, as well as precise spatial control of the position, orientation, and distances between multiple nanoparticles. In addition, dynamic control of nanomaterial assembly in response to multiple stimuli, with minimal or no error, and the reversibility of the assemblies are also required. In this Account, we summarize recent progress of using DNA as a powerful programmable tool to realize the above goals. First, inspired by the discovery of genetic codes in biology, we have discovered DNA sequence combinations to control different morphologies of nanoparticles during their growth process and have shown that these effects are synergistic or competitive, depending on the sequence combination. The DNA, which guides the growth of the nanomaterial, is stable and retains its biorecognition ability. Second, by taking advantage of different reactivities of phosphorothioate and phosphodiester backbone, we have placed phosphorothioate at selective positions on different DNA nanostructures including DNA tetrahedrons. Bifunctional linkers have been used to conjugate phosphorothioate on one end and bind nanoparticles or proteins on the other end. In doing so, precise control of distances between two or more nanoparticles or proteins with nanometer resolution can be achieved. Furthermore, by developing facile methods to functionalize two hemispheres of Janus nanoparticles with two different DNA sequences regioselectively, we have demonstrated directional control of nanomaterial assembly, where DNA strands with specific hybridization serve as orthogonal linkers. Third, by using functional DNA that includes DNAzyme, aptamer, and aptazyme, dynamic control of assemblies of gold nanoparticles, quantum dots, carbon nanotubes, and iron oxide nanoparticles in response to one or more stimuli cooperatively have been achieved, resulting in colorimetric, fluorescent, electrochemical, and magnetic resonance signals for a wide range of targets, such as metal ions, small molecules, proteins, and intact cells. Fourth, by mimicking biology, we have employed DNAzymes as proofreading units to remove errors in nanoparticle assembly and further used DNAzyme cascade reactions to modify or repair DNA sequences involved in the assembly. Finally, by taking advantage of different affinities of biotin and desthiobiotin toward streptavidin, we have demonstrated reversible assembly of proteins on DNA origami.
CONSPECTUS: Several properties of nanomaterials, such as morphologies (e.g., shapes and surface structures) and distance dependent properties (e.g., plasmonic and quantum confinement effects), make nanomaterials uniquely qualified as potential choices for future applications from catalysis to biomedicine. To realize the full potential of these nanomaterials, it is important to demonstrate fine control of the morphology of individual nanoparticles, as well as precise spatial control of the position, orientation, and distances between multiple nanoparticles. In addition, dynamic control of nanomaterial assembly in response to multiple stimuli, with minimal or no error, and the reversibility of the assemblies are also required. In this Account, we summarize recent progress of using DNA as a powerful programmable tool to realize the above goals. First, inspired by the discovery of genetic codes in biology, we have discovered DNA sequence combinations to control different morphologies of nanoparticles during their growth process and have shown that these effects are synergistic or competitive, depending on the sequence combination. The DNA, which guides the growth of the nanomaterial, is stable and retains its biorecognition ability. Second, by taking advantage of different reactivities of phosphorothioate and phosphodiester backbone, we have placed phosphorothioate at selective positions on different DNA nanostructures including DNA tetrahedrons. Bifunctional linkers have been used to conjugate phosphorothioate on one end and bind nanoparticles or proteins on the other end. In doing so, precise control of distances between two or more nanoparticles or proteins with nanometer resolution can be achieved. Furthermore, by developing facile methods to functionalize two hemispheres of Janus nanoparticles with two different DNA sequences regioselectively, we have demonstrated directional control of nanomaterial assembly, where DNA strands with specific hybridization serve as orthogonal linkers. Third, by using functional DNA that includes DNAzyme, aptamer, and aptazyme, dynamic control of assemblies of gold nanoparticles, quantum dots, carbon nanotubes, and iron oxide nanoparticles in response to one or more stimuli cooperatively have been achieved, resulting in colorimetric, fluorescent, electrochemical, and magnetic resonance signals for a wide range of targets, such as metal ions, small molecules, proteins, and intact cells. Fourth, by mimicking biology, we have employed DNAzymes as proofreading units to remove errors in nanoparticle assembly and further used DNAzyme cascade reactions to modify or repair DNA sequences involved in the assembly. Finally, by taking advantage of different affinities of biotin and desthiobiotin toward streptavidin, we have demonstrated reversible assembly of proteins on DNA origami.
Nanomaterials
have shown enormous promise as the next-generation
materials in many areas of applications ranging from catalysis to
photonics, environmental detection, biomedical diagnostics and therapy.[1−4] Such promise arises from unique properties conferred by these nanomaterials,
such as their plasmonic and quantum confinement effects that largely
depend on morphologies (e.g., shapes and surface structures)[5] and interparticle distances.[6,7] Therefore,
to realize the full potential of these nanomaterials, it is important
to control the morphologies of individual nanomaterials, as well as
positioning and orientation of these nanomaterials in three-dimensional
space. Furthermore, it is also important to exert selective and dynamic
control over the assembly disassembly process in response to needs
or stimuli.To meet these requirements, directed-assembly methods
are often
used, but these methods rely on control of external variables, such
as concentration, reaction time, pH, and solution temperature. In
contrast, Nature produces high quality materials under almost constant
external variables. For example, seashells and pearls from the ocean
are produced from the same material under the same ambient conditions,
yet form different final structures in response to biological signals.
Learning from Nature would allow us to perform directed-assembly of
different types of materials in response to multiple stimuli. In addition,
the ability of Nature to generate “perfect” or error-free
materials should be investigated as well.[8,9] Finally,
while many directed-assemblies performed in the laboratory are irreversible,
biological assembly processes are often reversible, allowing the building
of dynamic structures to perform their biological functions. By mimicking
these biological processes in Nature, we can achieve similar controls
for abiological materials at the nanoscale.As the genetic storage
material in biological systems, DNA stands
out as an excellent material for providing both spatial and dynamic
control, because of its predictable base-pair interactions and its
programmable sequence. Recent progress has shown that DNA can form
various geometries and motifs beyond the standard double helix and
then assemble into 1D, 2D, and 3D structures.[10−16] These DNA nanostructures can be further conjugated to nanomaterials
through modified functional groups on the DNA, such as amine, sulfhydryl,
or carboxylate groups.[17−20] Furthermore, DNA has been found to serve as enzymes (called deoxyribozymes
or DNAzymes) and recognition molecules like antibodies (called aptamers).
This class of DNA, called functional DNA (fDNA), can be identified
through a process called Systematic Evolution of Ligands by Exponential
Enrichment (SELEX), in which fDNA is isolated from a library of ∼1015 random DNA sequences. This process allows fDNA to be highly
selective for almost any targets ranging from metal ions, small organic
molecules, to proteins, cancer cells, bacteria, and viruses.[21−24] Therefore, these fDNA molecules are ideal choice for stimuli-responsive
control of nanoassembly, as described in several other reviews.[25−27]In this Account, we summarize our recent research progress
of using
these DNA molecules to provide morphological control of nanoparticles,
spatial control of nanoassemblies, and dynamic control of the nanomaterial
assembly and disassembly process in response to chemical or biological
stimuli. Extensions of these methods for preparing error-free materials
and achieving reversible assembly are also described.
Discovery of DNA “Genetic Codes”
To Control Nanoparticle Morphology
The discovery of three-letter
genetic codes, which consists of
combinations of DNA nucleotides for the synthesis of proteins, is
a foundation for modern biology. We hypothesized that a similar exploration
of DNA sequence combinations could be used for controlling the morphology
of nanomaterials. This discovery could have transformative potentials
not only in advancing the fundamental knowledge of biomolecular interactions
with nanomaterials, but also producing nanomaterials with novel morphology
for different applications including catalysis, environmental detection
and medical diagnosis and therapy.[1−4]DNA molecules have been widely used
as templates or scaffolds for
assembly of nanoparticles (NPs) for various applications.[28−32] The majority of the work reported so far, however, has involved
NP functionalization with DNA after the NPs are synthesized,[33−37] thereby the DNA could not influence the NP morphology. A few recent
studies using DNA in NP synthesis reported encouraging findings that
different DNA sequences can influence both the structure and property
of the nanomaterials.[38−43] However, few studies have comprehensively and systematically reported
the effects of varying DNA sequences on the growth of NPs, and few
rules have been summarized and applied toward the synthesis and fine
control of NP morphology. To bridge this knowledge gap, we have used
a seed-mediated growth method to investigate the influence of different
DNA sequence combinations on the growth of NPs into different morphologies,
upon preincubation of the NP seeds with different DNA sequences. In
our initial study, we found that reduction of Au in the presence of
a single stranded DNA (ssDNA) containing 30 repeating units of either
cytosine (C30) or adenine (A30) transformed spherical AuNP seeds into
stable spiky nanoflowers.[44] In contrast,
Au NP growth in the presence of T30 resulted in only larger spherical
AuNPs (Figure 1a).[44] Since the nanoflowers displayed excellent scattering properties,
they were used for dark-field imaging of cancer cells, showing higher
imaging contrast than corresponding spherical AuNPs. More interestingly,
the DNA on the Au nanoflowers exhibited enhanced stability against
dithiothreitol replacement in comparison to thiolated DNA on AuNP
surface, probably due to partial embedding of the DNA into the nanoflowers
during the growth process. Despite being partially embedded, the DNA
on the surface retain its biorecognition and hybridization ability.[44]
Figure 1
(a) Shape-controlled
growth of AuNP from spherical seeds into Au
nanoflowers and Au nanospheres in the presence of A30, C30, or T30
DNA molecules. Enhanced stability of the DNA on the Au nanoflowers
can be attributed to partially imbedded DNA in the Au nanostructures.
(b) Scheme summarizing different AuNP morphologies grown from Au prism
seeds in the presence of different DNA sequences and the relationship
between different sequence combinations in governing different morphologies
(the sizes are on average 180 nm). (Reproduced with permission from
ref 45. Copyright 2012 Wiley-VCH.) (c) Table summarizing the rules
of different DNA bases and their combinations in controlling the AuNP
morphology from Au nanoprism seeds.
Encouraged by these results, we further
explored the effect of
sequence combinations of DNA to investigate if there is any synergy
between different DNA bases. Instead of using spherical AuNPs, we
chose triangular Au nanoprism as the seed, because it contains corners,
edges, and faces that may interact with different DNA bases and their
combinations differently. This system produced a variety of morphologies
such as smooth hexagonal plates, smooth six-pointed stars, round flat
plates, and round rough plates, in the presence of G20, T30, C30,
and A30, respectively (Figure 1b).[45] The morphologies of AuNPs obtained were found
to be independent of the length of the DNA strands, suggesting the
important role of the nucleobases in controlling the shape. More excitingly,
we found that there is a clear semiquantitative transition from one
morphology (e.g., G20) to another (e.g., T30) when using different
sequence combinations under identical experimental conditions. For
example, a transition from smooth hexagon plates to smooth six-pointed
stars was observed with increasing T to G ratio, that is, from G20
to T10G20, T15G15, T20G10, and T30 (Figure 1b). Similar transitions in other sequence combinations were also
observed. These results suggest that DNA has the ability to control
and encode the synthesis of NPs to form specific morphologies based
on the DNA sequence, similar to the genetic codes for protein translation.
Based on these results, a set of rules that govern the morphology
and shape transition of the NPs for homogeneous and mixed DNA strands
has been established (Figure 1c).(a) Shape-controlled
growth of AuNP from spherical seeds into Au
nanoflowers and Au nanospheres in the presence of A30, C30, or T30
DNA molecules. Enhanced stability of the DNA on the Au nanoflowers
can be attributed to partially imbedded DNA in the Au nanostructures.
(b) Scheme summarizing different AuNP morphologies grown from Au prism
seeds in the presence of different DNA sequences and the relationship
between different sequence combinations in governing different morphologies
(the sizes are on average 180 nm). (Reproduced with permission from
ref 45. Copyright 2012 Wiley-VCH.) (c) Table summarizing the rules
of different DNA bases and their combinations in controlling the AuNP
morphology from Au nanoprism seeds.
Using DNA for Spatial Control of Nanoscale Assembly
While it is significant to synthesize NPs with different morphologies,
they are just building blocks for nanodevices. To achieve the assembly
desired for performing specific functions, precise control of distances
and orientation between two different NPs are critical.[7,31,46] Here, we summarize our efforts
for precise spatial control of nanomaterial assembly in different
dimensions using DNA.
Precise Distance Control
Using Phosphorothioate
DNA and Bifunctional Linkers
A major trait of using DNA for
assembly is the ability to control the distance between two NPs, due
to the programmability of DNA through sequence-specific hybridization,
and the rigidity of the double-stranded (ds) structure with a persistence
length of ∼50 nm, and even longer when three-way or four-way
junctions are employed. These properties have resulted in formation
of NP assemblies with defined order and distance in 1D, 2D, and 3D
structures.[10−16] However, most of these methods require careful preparation and inefficient
purification methods for obtaining monofunctionalized NPs, making
it difficult to scale up for practical applications. Furthermore,
it is also difficult to place the NPs at any desirable position on
DNA nanostructures without affecting the stability. To overcome these
limitations, we took advantage of phosphorothioate modified DNA and
synthesized a bifunctional linker that can selectively conjugate to
phosphorothioate backbone on one end (e.g., iodoacetamide) and bind
to NPs selectively on the other end (e.g., maleimide, hydroxysuccinamide,
or biotin) (Figure 2a).[47,48] The conjugation was found to have high yields up to 90%. By introducing
the phosphorothioate modifications at specific locations on a DNA,
the placement of NPs at any position on DNA structures can be accomplished.
Since the distance between two adjacent phosphodiesters on the DNA
double helix is 0.34 nm, this method may in principle achieve sub-nanometer
resolution. Using this method, assemblies of two AuNPs on dsDNA were
demonstrated with DNA strands modified with phosphorothioate groups
at 80, 70, or 60 base pairs apart (Figure 2b).[47] The average distances between AuNPs,
determined to be 27.2, 23.8, and 20.4 nm, respectively, based on scanning
electron microscopy (SEM) images, matched well with the calculated
distances. In addition to assembling NPs, this method has been used
to attach different proteins with precise spatial control in 1D DNA
double helix[49] and 3D DNA tetrahedron.[50] In the latter work, the vertices of the tetrahedron
were modified with phosphorothioates and subsequently functionalized
with biotins to conjugate with streptavidins (Figure 2c).[50] This study demonstrated that
our method can be used to attach proteins onto 3D structures that
are known to be delicate and not very stable. Since the phosphorothioate
modification occurs on the backbone, this functionalization method
has little effect on the integrity and stability of the 3D structure
compared to other methods. With proper linker choices, this method
can be widely applied to attach any proteins or nanomaterials at any
position of DNA structures with precisely defined distances.
Figure 2
(a) Reaction
of phosphorothioate modified DNA backbone with different
iodoacetamide bilinkers. (b) SEM images showing sets of AuNP pairs
with defined distances on phosphorothioated dsDNA (scale bar = 200
nm). (Reproduced with permission from ref (47). Copyright 2007 Wiley-VCH.) (c) Scheme of
phosphorothioated DNA tetrahedron functionalized with biotin and streptavidin.
(Reproduced with permission from ref (50). Copyright 2011 Wiley-VCH.)
(a) Reaction
of phosphorothioate modified DNA backbone with different
iodoacetamide bilinkers. (b) SEM images showing sets of AuNP pairs
with defined distances on phosphorothioated dsDNA (scale bar = 200
nm). (Reproduced with permission from ref (47). Copyright 2007 Wiley-VCH.) (c) Scheme of
phosphorothioated DNA tetrahedron functionalized with biotin and streptavidin.
(Reproduced with permission from ref (50). Copyright 2011 Wiley-VCH.)
Directional Control of
NP Assembly Using DNA-Functionalized
Janus Nanoparticles
In addition to distance control, the
direction and orientation of building blocks are also important in
nanoassembly. One of the ways to achieve directional control of nanoparticle
assembly is the use of Janus nanoparticles (JNPs), which contain regions
of distinct functionalities that are spatially separated from each
other, thereby allowing directional interaction.[51] Commonly used approaches to synthesize Janus particles
include phase separation methods like emulsion polymerization, seeded
growth, and microfluidics-assisted fabrication, as well as surface-based
masking techniques and self-assembly of block polymers.[51] Despite the promising roles of JNPs in directional
control, however, it is difficult to functionalize JNP regioselectively
in high yields. Several groups have reported the synthesis of metallic
nanoparticles with anisotropic DNA functionalization by using microsized
beads as masks for directional attachment of DNA[28,52,53] and in situ phase separation synthesis of
asymmetric DNA-functionalized NPs.[54] We
have functionalized JNPs with two orthogonal DNA sequences on each
side of JNPs, via two methods: the surface template method[55] and the colloidal ligand-competition method.[56] The surface-template method is more modular
and tunable in terms of synthesis of larger nanoparticles, while the
colloidal ligand-competition method produces high yield JNPs with
smaller sizes.In the first method, the JNP was fabricated from
electron beam-assisted evaporation of Au onto a monolayer of polystyrene
(PS) beads where only half hemisphere of the PS beads was coated with
Au.[57,58] The Au hemisphere was first functionalized
with thiolated DNA, D1. The regioselective functionalization of JNP
was observed when Au nanospheres (AuNSs) containing the complementary
strand, D1′, selectively assembled only onto the Au side of
the JNP but not the PS side.[55] No assembly
was observed when noncomplementary DNA strands were used. Using this
method, AuNSs of different sizes ranging from 15 to 80 nm with complementary
DNA strands were assembled on the Au hemisphere of a 160 nm JNP, with
well-controlled structure and yield (Figure 3a). Consistent with theoretical prediction, the number of AuNSs on
each JNP decreased with increasing sizes of AuNS. In addition, a second
DNA was introduced to the PS surface of the JNP through a bifunctional
linker that connected the surface amine group on the JNP with thiolated
DNA strands, D2. The second functional group enabled JNPs to be functionalized
with two different types of AuNSs orthogonally and regioselectively
(Figure 3a).
Figure 3
(a) (Top) JNPs functionalized with two different DNA strands with
spatial control showing regioselective assemblies. (Bottom) SEM figures
show assembly of JNPs with AuNSs of 15–80 nm in size (scale
bar = 200 nm). (Reproduced with permission from ref (55). Copyright 2012 American
Chemical Society.) (b) Anisotropic nanoparticles prepared in a one-pot
synthesis and the various nanostructures formed through DNA hybridization
(scale bar = 25 nm). (Reproduced with permission from ref (56). Copyright 2013 American
Chemical Society.)
Despite the modular and
tunable features of the surface template
method, it is still difficult to scale up the method, due to the limited
surface area of the template when the JNPs are manufactured. To address
this issue, we introduced a facile colloidal synthesis method that
could form anisotropic NPs using ligand competition.[56] In this method, AuNPs were incubated with a mixture of
hydrophobic ligands (thiolated lipids), hydrophilic ligands (thiolated
DNA strands) and amphiphilic polymers in DMF/H2O. Upon
heating for 2 h and cooling to room temperature, the anisotropic NPs
formed had partial polymer attachment (Figure 3b). The ligand on the Au surface that was exposed to the solvent
can be exchanged with any other thiolated DNA for directional assembly.
In addition, a second functionality was introduced on the polymer
surface using amine functionalized DNA to conjugate to the carboxylic
groups. In addition to the spatial control offered by DNA, the use
of DNA-modified JNPs allows specific and regioselective assembly of
NPs.(a) (Top) JNPs functionalized with two different DNA strands with
spatial control showing regioselective assemblies. (Bottom) SEM figures
show assembly of JNPs with AuNSs of 15–80 nm in size (scale
bar = 200 nm). (Reproduced with permission from ref (55). Copyright 2012 American
Chemical Society.) (b) Anisotropic nanoparticles prepared in a one-pot
synthesis and the various nanostructures formed through DNA hybridization
(scale bar = 25 nm). (Reproduced with permission from ref (56). Copyright 2013 American
Chemical Society.)
Using Functional
DNA for Dynamic Control of
Nanoscale Assembly
To achieve fully functional nanodevices,
the assembly in nanoscale
requires not only precise spatial control, but also dynamic control
of the assemblies in response to stimuli. Furthermore, the assembly
process needs to be error-free to ensure the consistent performance
of these materials or devices. Finally, the assembly process is preferred
to be reversible so that malfunctional components can be replaced
modularly or new components can be introduced. Nature has used numerous
reversible assembly processes to synthesize mostly error-free materials
that simultaneously respond to multiple internal stimuli under ambient
conditions. Inspired by Nature, we have mimicked many of these bioassembly
processes using fDNA.
Dynamic Control in Response
to a Stimulus
As mentioned in the Introduction, a number
of fDNA sequences that respond to a wide range of targets have been
identified.[25] By linking the fDNA with
nanomaterials, we have demonstrated a number of directed assembly
processes in response to the target molecules as stimuli.[59] The first demonstration is the use of a Pb2+-specific DNAzyme that contains a substrate strand, D3, with
a single RNA base as the cleavage site, and an enzyme strand, D4.
The AuNPs assembled through hybridization between D3 and complementary
DNA strands on the AuNPs would appear purple due to plasmon coupling
(Figure 4a).[60] In
the presence of a metal cofactor, like Pb2+ for 8–17
DNAzyme, the D3 will be cleaved into two shorter DNA fragments, whose
melting temperatures of the hybridization with the complementary DNA
strands on the AuNPs are below room temperature. As a result, dehybridization
of the DNA fragments from D4 caused the disassembly of AuNPs and purple-to-red
color change, making it a simple colorimetric sensor for Pb2+. This method can be generally applied to other DNAzymes, such as
a uranyl-selective DNAzyme.[61] Furthermore,
assembly of AuNPs can also be controlled in response to stimuli, as
demonstrated with the use of Cu2+-catalyzed DNA ligation.[62]
Figure 4
(a) AuNP–DNAzyme
conjugates responsive to the absence and
presence of Pb2+, leading to assembled (blue) and disassembled
(red) nanostructures, respectively. (b) AuNP–aptamer conjugates
responding to adenosine. (c) Multiplex detection with assemblies of
AuNPs and QDs, with 525 nm emission for adenosine and 585 nm emission
for cocaine. (d) Aptazyme responsive to both adenosine and Pb2+. (Reproduced with permission from ref (64). Copyright 2007 American
Chemical Society.) (e) Two cooperatively triggered disassemblies of
NPs in the presence of adenosine and/or cocaine. (f) Time dependent
changes of the ratio of extinction at 522 nm over 700 nm for the two
designs in (e) in the presence of adenosine (Ade) and/or cocaine (Coc).
(Reproduced with permission from ref (69). Copyright 2006 Wiley-VCH.)
In addition to metal ions, other molecules,
such as organic molecules and proteins, can be used as triggers of
assembly or disassembly of NPs, through the use of aptamers. For example,
DNA-functionalized AuNPs can be assembled using a linker strand that
contains an aptamer sequence for adenosine, D5 (Figure 4b). Upon binding of adenosine, the hybridization between D5
and the DNA strands on the AuNPs is weakened, resulting in disassembly
of the AuNPs and a color change from blue to red.[63] This method to trigger the release of AuNPs was further
extended to other nanomaterials, such as quantum dots (QDs),[64] carbon nanotubes (CNTs),[65] and iron oxide NPs,[66] resulting
in fluorescent and magnetic resonance imaging signal changes for sensing
of different targets. One of such examples is shown in Figure 4c,[64] where two QDs of
different emission wavelength (525 nm, QD525 and 585 nm,
QD585) were functionalized with adenosine and cocaine aptamers,
respectively. The QD525 emission was initially quenched
due to energy transfer with nearby AuNPs. In the presence of adenosine,
the AuNPs bound to the QD525 would be released, resulting
in an increase of 525 nm emission. Similarly, 585 nm fluorescence
would increase in the presence of cocaine. Because of the narrow emissions
of QDs, simultaneous detection of both cocaine and adenosine was demonstrated.(a) AuNP–DNAzyme
conjugates responsive to the absence and
presence of Pb2+, leading to assembled (blue) and disassembled
(red) nanostructures, respectively. (b) AuNP–aptamer conjugates
responding to adenosine. (c) Multiplex detection with assemblies of
AuNPs and QDs, with 525 nm emission for adenosine and 585 nm emission
for cocaine. (d) Aptazyme responsive to both adenosine and Pb2+. (Reproduced with permission from ref (64). Copyright 2007 American
Chemical Society.) (e) Two cooperatively triggered disassemblies of
NPs in the presence of adenosine and/or cocaine. (f) Time dependent
changes of the ratio of extinction at 522 nm over 700 nm for the two
designs in (e) in the presence of adenosine (Ade) and/or cocaine (Coc).
(Reproduced with permission from ref (69). Copyright 2006 Wiley-VCH.)
Dynamic Control in Response
to Multiple Stimuli
In biological processes, multiple events
can be triggered simultaneously,
often with cooperativity. Similarly, NP assembly can be designed to
respond to multiple stimuli. An application of such design is to increase
the selectivity for sensing, as it relies on the cooperation between
two or more targets.[67] One such example
is the use of aptazymes, consisting of an aptamer and a DNAzyme, whose
activity can be modulated in the presence of the aptamer target. As
shown in Figure 4d, an adenosine aptamer sequence
was inserted into a Pb2+-specific DNAzyme, inactivating
the DNAzyme even in the presence of Pb2+. Once adenosine
is added, the aptamer sequence would fold to regenerate the catalytic
site,[68] restoring the Pb2+-dependent
DNAzyme activity. When conjugated to AuNPs, the color change observed
from disassembly of AuNPs only occurred when both Pb2+ and
adenosine were present.In addition to aptazymes, two aptamers
can be designed to trigger disassembly in response to either one or
both of the targets cooperatively (Figure 4e).[69] In this design where AuNPs were
linked by a DNA strand with two aptamer sequences, the disassembly
process occurred in the presence of either target of the aptamers.
On the other hand, when both aptamer sequences were used to link the
AuNPs, the disassembly process can occur only in the presence of both
targets of the aptamers. The color change was observed and quantified
using the ratio of absorbance at 522 nm over the absorbance at 700
nm (Figure 4f). These designs were also expanded
to respond to K+ ions with a G-quadruplex forming aptamer
in addition to either cocaine or adenosine triggers.[69]
Proofreading and Error
Correction
A major challenge in nanomaterial assembly is
that unexpected errors
often occur during the assembly process, resulting in defects of obtained
materials. A common practice to deal with this issue is to try to
optimize the condition to avoid errors in assembly. However, it is
extremely difficult to achieve perfect assembly without any error.
Another solution to this problem is to design devices that can bypass
the defects. While some defects may be tolerable in bulk materials,
it can be highly detrimental at the nanoscale, leading to low quality
or nonfunctional devices. Similar issues exist in biology, for example,
protein synthesis that involves assembly of different amino acids
is vulnerable to mistakes by erroneous incorporation of a wrong amino
acid. Instead of trying to avoid errors, Nature has elegantly addressed
this issue by developing proofreading units that can recognize and
remove the errors. Inspired by such concept in biology, we have demonstrated
the use of DNAzymes as proofreading units to recognize and remove
the erroneous AuNPs containing the incorrect DNA strand D6 from the
assembly, while leaving the AuNPs containing the perfect complementary
DNA strand D7 intact (Figure 5a).[70]
Figure 5
(a) Dynamic
control of nanoassemblies where erroneous particles
were proofread and removed. (b) A DNA sequence on the AuNP can be
replaced with another sequence by using a cleavage DNAzyme (17E) and
a ligation DNAzyme (E47). (c) Schematics and AFM images of DNA origami
patterned with “I” and “i” using desthiobiotinylated
and biotinylated DNA staples (scale bar = 70 nm). (Reproduced with
permission from ref (72). Copyright 2013 American Chemical Society.)
In addition to removing erroneous AuNPs,
we can further replace the incorrect AuNPs with a correct AuNP.[71] This task is achieved by using an enzyme cascade
reaction that combines a cleavage DNAzyme (17E) and a ligation DNAzyme
(E47). Two DNAzymes work cooperatively to recognize and cleave DNA
from D8 or D9, into D10, respectively, followed by ligating D10 to
D11. As a result, the erroneous single ribonucleotide in D8 was converted
to deoxyribonucleotide in D11. Similarly, the sequence in D9 was modified
into D11.
Controlled Reversible Assembly
Reversible
nanoassembly where one component can be replaced with another is important
for fine-tuning functions as well as correcting mistakes. While numerous
methods have been published in nanomaterial assembly, most of them
are irreversible. To demonstrate reversible assembly, we take advantage
of the difference in binding affinity between biotin (Kd ≈ 10–15 M) and desthiobiotin
(Kd ≈ 10–11 M)
toward streptavidin, and have demonstrated the ability to perform
reversible assembly of streptavidin that allows conveying of an encrypted
message encoded on DNA origami (Figure 5c).[72] Upon addition of biotin to the encoded DNA origami
that displayed uppercase "I", the streptavidin bound on
desthiobiotin
would be stripped away by biotin, revealing the lowercase “i”
as observed in Figure 5c. The pattern can be
reversed to the uppercase “I” with further addition
of streptavidin. We have also demonstrated encryption of a message
“NANO” in Morse code on DNA origami that can only be
revealed with the addition of biotin. This process can further be
reset to initial state with the addition of streptavidin.(a) Dynamic
control of nanoassemblies where erroneous particles
were proofread and removed. (b) A DNA sequence on the AuNP can be
replaced with another sequence by using a cleavage DNAzyme (17E) and
a ligation DNAzyme (E47). (c) Schematics and AFM images of DNA origami
patterned with “I” and “i” using desthiobiotinylated
and biotinylated DNA staples (scale bar = 70 nm). (Reproduced with
permission from ref (72). Copyright 2013 American Chemical Society.)
Conclusion and Outlook
Through examples
described in this Account, we have demonstrated
DNA as a powerful tool to advance different aspects of nanotechnology,
first as a versatile capping ligand to systematically control the
NP morphology, and then as a template for precise spatial control
of NP assembly, including precise distance control, achieved by selective
modification of DNA backbone with phosphorothioates, and directional
control, accomplished by regioselective functionalization of JNP with
DNA strands. Furthermore, by using fDNA such as DNAzyme and aptamer,
dynamic control of assemblies of different NPs, including AuNPs, QDs,
CNTs, and iron oxide NPs, in response to multiple stimuli with cooperativity
has been demonstrated, resulting in colorimetric and fluorescent sensors
as well as magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents for a wide range
of analytes. The DNAzymes can be further used as proofreading units
to remove errors and replace them with correct sequences for assembly.
Finally, reversible assembly is demonstrated by taking advantage of
different affinities of biotin and its analogue toward streptavidin.While these examples are encouraging, the detailed mechanism by
which the DNA performs these functions remains to be understood. For
example, how different DNA sequence combinations fine-tune the NP
morphologies is unclear. One factor is the different affinities of
the bases (A > C > G > T) for gold,[73] but
the exact mechanism is much more complicated, including the effects
of secondary or even tertiary structure of the DNA. Real-time monitoring
of the NP growth and identification of the interaction of DNA with
metal nanoparticle are required to elucidate the growth process. Once
the mechanism is understood, using DNA to code and predict the growth
of NPs would be possible. It would be interesting to discover if the
DNA codes can be applied to control the morphology of other nanomaterials,
and if similar rules apply. Because these DNA-encoded syntheses are
carried in solution with > 95% yield, resulting in uniform shapes,
it should be straightforward to scale up the method. However, even
though DNA is becoming cheaper, it is still more expensive than most
commodity chemicals. Therefore, applications of the methods described
in this Account are mostly fundamental understanding of the interactions
between biomolecules and nanomaterials as well as application of the
fDNA-based sensing and imaging, where the amount of materials needed
is small, due to high sensitivity.The precise spatial control
provides an excellent opportunity to
investigate functional properties of two or more NPs brought together
in a short distance and with defined angle of interactions, such as
chiral optical properties for sensing or for negative refractive index
materials.[46,74,75] Since the method can be applied to control distance of both NPs
and biomolecules, it would be interesting to explore assemblies of
both proteins and NPs in the same system and their functional properties,
such as self-propagating, multistep catalysis and reactions.Both directional control of assembly using JNPs and dynamic control
have a lot of potential for future explorations and applications.
The directional control afforded by the regioselective placement of
DNA strands on the two hemisphere of the JNPs, combined with dynamic
control of NP assemblies in response to multiple stimuli, offers opportunities
for 3D assemblies of novel structures and properties.[76] The principles demonstrated in the reversible assembly
of proteins can be further expanded for reversible assembly of other
nanomaterials such as metallic or semiconductor nanoparticles through
the conjugation of biotin and desthiobiotin. Such reversible assembly
will allow their properties to be reversibly tuned. Finally, although
the concepts of proofreading/error correction and reversible assembly
have been demonstrated, the method needs to be expanded to other NP
systems for broader applications.
Authors: Robert J Macfarlane; Byeongdu Lee; Matthew R Jones; Nadine Harris; George C Schatz; Chad A Mirkin Journal: Science Date: 2011-10-14 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Grigory Tikhomirov; Sjoerd Hoogland; P E Lee; Armin Fischer; Edward H Sargent; Shana O Kelley Journal: Nat Nanotechnol Date: 2011-07-10 Impact factor: 39.213
Authors: Hang Xing; Yugang Bai; Yunhao Bai; Li Huey Tan; Jing Tao; Benjamin Pedretti; Gretchen A Vincil; Yi Lu; Steven C Zimmerman Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Junling Guo; Blaise L Tardy; Andrew J Christofferson; Yunlu Dai; Joseph J Richardson; Wei Zhu; Ming Hu; Yi Ju; Jiwei Cui; Raymond R Dagastine; Irene Yarovsky; Frank Caruso Journal: Nat Nanotechnol Date: 2016-10-10 Impact factor: 39.213
Authors: Eva-Maria Roller; Larousse Khosravi Khorashad; Michael Fedoruk; Robert Schreiber; Alexander O Govorov; Tim Liedl Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2015-01-26 Impact factor: 11.189