Simulation of the Abstract Tile Assembly Model Using Crisscross Slats

Authors Phillip Drake, Daniel Hader, Matthew J. Patitz



PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.DNA.30.3.pdf
  • Filesize: 1.67 MB
  • 25 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Phillip Drake
  • University of Arkansas, USA
Daniel Hader
  • University of Arkansas, USA
Matthew J. Patitz
  • University of Arkansas, USA

Cite AsGet BibTex

Phillip Drake, Daniel Hader, and Matthew J. Patitz. Simulation of the Abstract Tile Assembly Model Using Crisscross Slats. In 30th International Conference on DNA Computing and Molecular Programming (DNA 30). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 314, pp. 3:1-3:25, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2024)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.DNA.30.3

Abstract

The abstract Tile Assembly Model (aTAM) provides an excellent foundation for the mathematical study of DNA-tile-based self-assembling systems, especially those wherein logic is embedded within the designs of the tiles so that they follow prescribed algorithms. While such algorithmic self-assembling systems are theoretically powerful, being computationally universal and capable of building complex shapes using information-theoretically optimal numbers of tiles, physical DNA-based implementations of these systems still encounter formidable error rates and undesired nucleation that hinder this theoretical potential. Slat-based self-assembly is a recent development wherein DNA forms long slats that combine together in 2 layers, rather than square tiles in a plane. In this approach, the length of the slats is key; while tiles typically only bind to 2 neighboring tiles at a time, slats may bind to dozens of other slats. This increased coordination between slats means that several mismatched slats must coincidentally meet in just the right way for errors to persist, unlike tiles where only a few are required. Consequently, while still a novel technology, large slat-based DNA constructions have been successfully implemented in the lab with resilience to many tile-based construction problems. These improved error characteristics come at a cost however, as slat-based systems are often more difficult to design and simulate than tile-based ones. Moreover, it has not been clear whether slats, with their larger sizes and different geometries, have the same theoretical capabilities as tiles. In this paper, we show that slats are capable of doing anything that tiles can, at least at scale. We demonstrate that any aTAM system may be converted to and simulated by an effectively equivalent system of slats. Furthermore, we show that these simulating slat systems can be made more efficiently, using shorter slats and a smaller scale factor, if the simulated tile system avoids certain uncommon growth patterns. Specifically, we consider 5 classes of aTAM systems with increasing complexity, from zig-zag systems which grow in a rigid pattern to the full class of all aTAM systems, and show how they may be converted to equivalent slat systems. We show that the simplest class may be simulated by slats at only a 2c × 2c scale, where c is the freely chosen coordination number of the slats, and further show that the full class of aTAM systems can be simulated at only a 5c × 5c scale. These results prove that slats have the full theoretical power of aTAM tiles while also providing constructions that are compact enough for potential DNA-based implementations of slat systems that are both capable of powerful algorithmic self-assembly and possessing of the strong error resilience of slats.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Models of computation
Keywords
  • DNA origami
  • tile-assembly
  • self-assembly
  • aTAM
  • kinetic modeling
  • computational modeling

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads

References

  1. Andrew Alseth and Matthew J Patitz. The need for seed (in the abstract tile assembly model). In Proceedings of the 2023 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 4540-4589. SIAM, 2023. Google Scholar
  2. Sarah Cannon, Erik D. Demaine, Martin L. Demaine, Sarah Eisenstat, Matthew J. Patitz, Robert T. Schweller, Scott M. Summers, and Andrew Winslow. Two hands are better than one (up to constant factors): Self-assembly in the 2HAM vs. aTAM. In Natacha Portier and Thomas Wilke, editors, STACS, volume 20 of LIPIcs, pages 172-184. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2013. Google Scholar
  3. Ho-Lin Chen and Ashish Goel. Error free self-assembly using error prone tiles. In C. Ferretti, G. Mauri, and C. Zandron, editors, 10th International Workshop on DNA Computing, DNA10, volume 3384 of LNCS, pages 62-75. Springer Verlag, 2005. Google Scholar
  4. Ho-Lin Chen, Rebecca Schulman, Ashish Goel, and Erik Winfree. Reducing facet nucleation during algorithmic self-assembly. Nano Letters, 7(9):2913-2919, September 2007. URL: https://doi.org/10.1021/nl070793o.
  5. Holin Chen, Ashish Goel, Erik Winfree, and Chris Luhrs. Self-assembling tile systems that heal from small fragments. In in Preliminary Proceedings of DNA Computing 13, pages 30-46, 2007. Google Scholar
  6. Matthew Cook, Yunhui Fu, and Robert T. Schweller. Temperature 1 self-assembly: Deterministic assembly in 3D and probabilistic assembly in 2D. In SODA 2011: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. SIAM, 2011. Google Scholar
  7. Jie Deng, Dionis Minev, Anastasia Ershova, and William M Shih. Branching crisscross polymerization of single-stranded dna slats. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2024. Google Scholar
  8. David Doty, Hunter Fleming, Daniel Hader, Matthew J Patitz, and Lukas A Vaughan. Accelerating self-assembly of crisscross slat systems. In 29th International Conference on DNA Computing and Molecular Programming (DNA 29)(2023). Schloss-Dagstuhl-Leibniz Zentrum für Informatik, 2023. Google Scholar
  9. David Doty, Jack H. Lutz, Matthew J. Patitz, Robert T. Schweller, Scott M. Summers, and Damien Woods. The tile assembly model is intrinsically universal. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2012, pages 302-310, 2012. Google Scholar
  10. Shawn M. Douglas, Hendrik Dietz, Tim Liedl, Björn Högberg, Franziska Graf, and William M. Shih. Self-assembly of DNA into nanoscale three-dimensional shapes. Nature, 459:414 EP-, May 2009. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08016.
  11. Phillip Drake, Daniel Hader, and Matthew J Patitz. Simulation of the abstract tile assembly model using crisscross slats. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06205, 2024. Google Scholar
  12. Anastasia Ershova, Dionis Minev, F Eduardo Corea-Dilbert, Devon Yu, Jie Deng, Walter Fontana, and William M Shih. Enzyme-free exponential amplification via growth and scission of crisscross ribbons from single-stranded dna components. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 146(1):218-227, 2023. Google Scholar
  13. Constantine Glen Evans. Crystals that count! Physical principles and experimental investigations of DNA tile self-assembly. PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology, 2014. Google Scholar
  14. Sándor P. Fekete, Jacob Hendricks, Matthew J. Patitz, Trent A. Rogers, and Robert T. Schweller. Universal computation with arbitrary polyomino tiles in non-cooperative self-assembly. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA 2015), San Diego, CA, USA, January 4-6, 2015, pages 148-167, 2015. Google Scholar
  15. Hongzhou Gu, Jie Chao, Shou-Jun Xiao, and Nadrian C. Seeman. A proximity-based programmable dna nanoscale assembly line. Nature, 465(7295):202-205, May 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09026.
  16. Daniel Hader, Aaron Koch, Matthew J. Patitz, and Michael Sharp. The impacts of dimensionality, diffusion, and directedness on intrinsic universality in the abstract tile assembly model. In Shuchi Chawla, editor, Proceedings of the 2020 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2020, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, January 5-8, 2020, pages 2607-2624. SIAM, 2020. Google Scholar
  17. Daniel Hader and Matthew J. Patitz. Abstract slat assembly model (asam). http://self-assembly.net/wiki/index.php/Abstract_Slat_Assembly_Model_(aSAM), 2023. [Online; accessed 9-July-2024].
  18. Daniel Hader and Matthew J. Patitz. The impacts of dimensionality, diffusion, and directedness on intrinsic cross-model simulation in tile-based self-assembly. In Kousha Etessami, Uriel Feige, and Gabriele Puppis, editors, 50th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, ICALP 2023, July 10-14, 2023, Paderborn, Germany, volume 261 of LIPIcs, pages 71:1-71:19. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2023.71.
  19. Daniel Hader and Matthew J. Patitz. SlatTAS: A Graphical Simulator for the aSAM^-. http://self-assembly.net/wiki/index.php?title=SlatTAS, 2023. [Online; accessed 28-April-2023].
  20. Jacob Hendricks, Matthew J. Patitz, and Trent A. Rogers. Universal simulation of directed systems in the abstract tile assembly model requires undirectedness. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2016), New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA October 9-11, 2016, pages 800-809, 2016. Google Scholar
  21. Jacob Hendricks, Matthew J. Patitz, Trent A. Rogers, and Scott M. Summers. The power of duples (in self-assembly): It’s not so hip to be square. Theoretical Computer Science, 743:148-166, 2018. Google Scholar
  22. Yonggang Ke, Luvena L Ong, William M Shih, and Peng Yin. Three-dimensional structures self-assembled from DNA bricks. Science, 338(6111):1177-1183, 2012. Google Scholar
  23. James I. Lathrop, Jack H. Lutz, Matthew J. Patitz, and Scott M. Summers. Computability and complexity in self-assembly. Theory Comput. Syst., 48(3):617-647, 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00224-010-9252-0.
  24. James I. Lathrop, Jack H. Lutz, and Scott M. Summers. Strict self-assembly of discrete Sierpinski triangles. Theoretical Computer Science, 410:384-405, 2009. Google Scholar
  25. Wenyan Liu, Hong Zhong, Risheng Wang, and Nadrian C. Seeman. Crystalline two-dimensional dna-origami arrays. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 50(1):264-267, 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201005911.
  26. Kyle Lund, Anthony J. Manzo, Nadine Dabby, Nicole Michelotti, Alexander Johnson-Buck, Jeanette Nangreave, Steven Taylor, Renjun Pei, Milan N. Stojanovic, Nils G. Walter, Erik Winfree, and Hao Yan. Molecular robots guided by prescriptive landscapes. Nature, 465(7295):206-210, May 2010. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09012.
  27. Pierre-Étienne Meunier, Matthew J. Patitz, Scott M. Summers, Guillaume Theyssier, Andrew Winslow, and Damien Woods. Intrinsic universality in tile self-assembly requires cooperation. In Proceedings of the ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA 2014), (Portland, OR, USA, January 5-7, 2014), pages 752-771, 2014. Google Scholar
  28. Pierre-Étienne Meunier and Damien Woods. The non-cooperative tile assembly model is not intrinsically universal or capable of bounded turing machine simulation. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2017, pages 328-341, New York, NY, USA, 2017. ACM. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3055399.3055446.
  29. Dionis Minev, Christopher M Wintersinger, Anastasia Ershova, and William M Shih. Robust nucleation control via crisscross polymerization of highly coordinated DNA slats. Nature Communications, 12(1):1-9, 2021. Google Scholar
  30. Nicolas Ollinger. The intrinsic universality problem of one-dimensional cellular automata. In Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, pages 632-641. Springer, 2003. Google Scholar
  31. Nicolas Ollinger. Intrinsically universal cellular automata. In The Complexity of Simple Programs, in Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, volume 1, pages 199-204, 2008. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3213.
  32. Jennifer E. Padilla, Wenyan Liu, and Nadrian C. Seeman. Hierarchical self assembly of patterns from the robinson tilings: Dna tile design in an enhanced tile assembly model. Natural Computing, 11(2):323-338, June 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11047-011-9268-7.
  33. Matthew J. Patitz, Robert T. Schweller, and Scott M. Summers. Exact shapes and Turing universality at temperature 1 with a single negative glue. In Luca Cardelli and William M. Shih, editors, DNA Computing and Molecular Programming - 17th International Conference, DNA 17, Pasadena, CA, USA, September 19-23, 2011. Proceedings, volume 6937 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 175-189. Springer, 2011. Google Scholar
  34. Matthew J. Patitz and Scott M. Summers. Self-assembly of decidable sets. Natural Computing, 10(2):853-877, 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11047-010-9218-9.
  35. John Reif, Sudheer Sahu, and Peng Yin. Compact error-resilient computational DNA tiling assemblies. In DNA: International Workshop on DNA-Based Computers. LNCS, 2004. Google Scholar
  36. Paul W. K. Rothemund. Folding DNA to create nanoscale shapes and patterns. Nature, 440(7082):297-302, March 2006. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04586.
  37. Paul W. K. Rothemund and Erik Winfree. The program-size complexity of self-assembled squares (extended abstract). In STOC '00: Proceedings of the thirty-second annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 459-468, Portland, Oregon, United States, 2000. ACM. Google Scholar
  38. Paul WK Rothemund, Nick Papadakis, and Erik Winfree. Algorithmic self-assembly of dna sierpinski triangles. PLoS biology, 2(12):e424, 2004. Google Scholar
  39. David Soloveichik, Matthew Cook, and Erik Winfree. Combining self-healing and proofreading in self-assembly. Natural Computing, 7(2):203-218, 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11047-007-9036-x.
  40. David Soloveichik and Erik Winfree. Complexity of compact proofreading for self-assembled patterns. In Alessandra Carbone and Niles A. Pierce, editors, DNA Computing, 11th International Workshop on DNA Computing, DNA11, London, ON, Canada, June 6-9, 2005. Revised Selected Papers, volume 3892 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 305-324. Springer, 2005. Google Scholar
  41. David Soloveichik and Erik Winfree. Complexity of self-assembled shapes. SIAM Journal on Computing, 36(6):1544-1569, 2007. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/S0097539704446712.
  42. Grigory Tikhomirov, Philip Petersen, and Lulu Qian. Fractal assembly of micrometre-scale DNA origami arrays with arbitrary patterns. Nature, 552(7683):67-71, 2017. Google Scholar
  43. Erik Winfree. Algorithmic Self-Assembly of DNA. PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology, June 1998. Google Scholar
  44. Erik Winfree and Renat Bekbolatov. Proofreading tile sets: Error correction for algorithmic self-assembly. In Junghuei Chen and John H. Reif, editors, DNA Computing, 9th International Workshop on DNA Based Computers, DNA9, Madison, WI, USA, June 1-3, 2003, revised Papers, volume 2943 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 126-144. Springer, 2003. Google Scholar
  45. Christopher M Wintersinger, Dionis Minev, Anastasia Ershova, Hiroshi M Sasaki, Gokul Gowri, Jonathan F Berengut, F Eduardo Corea-Dilbert, Peng Yin, and William M Shih. Multi-micron crisscross structures grown from dna-origami slats. Nature Nanotechnology, pages 1-9, 2022. Google Scholar
  46. Damien Woods. Intrinsic universality and the computational power of self-assembly. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 373(2046), 2015. URL: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0214.
  47. Damien Woods, David Doty, Cameron Myhrvold, Joy Hui, Felix Zhou, Peng Yin, and Erik Winfree. Diverse and robust molecular algorithms using reprogrammable dna self-assembly. Nature, 567(7748):366-372, 2019. Google Scholar
  48. Yin Zhang, Angus McMullen, Lea-Laetitia Pontani, Xiaojin He, Ruojie Sha, Nadrian C. Seeman, Jasna Brujic, and Paul M. Chaikin. Sequential self-assembly of dna functionalized droplets. Nature Communications, 8(1):21, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00070-0.
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail