ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
My Activity
CONTENT TYPES

Figure 1Loading Img
RETURN TO ISSUEPREVResearch ArticleNEXT

Stiffness and Membrane Anchor Density Modulate DNA-Nanospring-Induced Vesicle Tubulation

  • Michael W Grome
    Michael W Grome
    Department of Cell Biology, Yale University School of Medicine, and Nanobiology Institute, Yale University, 850 West Campus Drive, West Haven, Connecticut 06516, United States
  • Zhao Zhang
    Zhao Zhang
    Department of Cell Biology, Yale University School of Medicine, and Nanobiology Institute, Yale University, 850 West Campus Drive, West Haven, Connecticut 06516, United States
    More by Zhao Zhang
  • , and 
  • Chenxiang Lin*
    Chenxiang Lin
    Department of Cell Biology, Yale University School of Medicine, and Nanobiology Institute, Yale University, 850 West Campus Drive, West Haven, Connecticut 06516, United States
    *Email: [email protected]
Cite this: ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 26, 22987–22992
Publication Date (Web):June 21, 2019
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.9b05401

Copyright © 2019 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

  • Open Access
  • Editors Choice

Article Views

2534

Altmetric

-

Citations

LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS
PDF (5 MB)
Supporting Info (1)»

Abstract

DNA nanotechnology provides an avenue for the construction of rationally designed artificial assemblages with well-defined and tunable architectures. Shaped to mimic natural membrane-deforming proteins and equipped with membrane anchoring molecules, curved DNA nanostructures can reproduce subcellular membrane remodeling events such as vesicle tubulation in vitro. To systematically analyze how structural stiffness and membrane affinity of DNA nanostructures affect the membrane remodeling outcome, here we build DNA-origami curls with varying thickness and amphipathic peptide density, and have them polymerize into nanosprings on the surface of liposomes. We find that modestly reducing rigidity and maximizing the number of membrane anchors not only promote membrane binding and remodeling but also lead to the formation of lipid tubules with better defined diameters, highlighting the ability of programmable DNA-based constructs to controllably deform the membrane.

Introduction

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Intracellular space is full of intricate and dynamic membrane architectures that segregate biochemical reactions and facilitate cellular metabolism. (1,2) Tubular shapes are found as common intermediates during membrane remodeling and are often maintained by well-organized, however transient, protein complexes. (3−9) Creating biomimetic constructs that recapitulate membrane dynamics, such as tubulation in a cell-free environment, is a powerful approach to the mechanistic understanding of protein-mediated membrane remodeling. Further, controllable membrane manipulating techniques may enable the development of drug delivery and cell reprogramming tools. Structural DNA nanotechnology, which takes advantage of the defined DNA structures and base-pairing rules to build nanoscale objects with customizable geometry and chemically addressable surfaces, (10−15) presents an opportunity to dynamically shape membranes. (16−23) For example, a number of studies showed that DNA nanostructures modified with membrane anchors (e.g., cholesterol, amphipathic peptides) were able to drive lipid tubule formation on artificial membranes, including supported lipid bilayers (20) as well as large and giant unilamellar vesicles (LUVs and GUVs). (21−23) Besides proving the concept, this body of work also provides general guidelines for the design (e.g., curvature and membrane anchor placement) and deployment (e.g., osmolality, membrane surface coverage, etc.) of the membrane-sculpting DNA structures. However, the curved DNA structures used in previous studies to imitate membrane-deforming proteins (e.g., BAR and ESCRT) featured high structural rigidity, yet the resulting lipid tubules were somewhat polydispersed in diameter (i.e., curvature). (22,23) This prompted us to study the correlation between the stiffness of DNA structures and their vesicle-tubulation products.
Mechanical properties of multihelix bundle DNA nanostructures greatly depend on the shape and area of their cross-sections. (24,25) Increasing the number of helices in a DNA-origami rod can lead to a quadratic increment in its persistence length. (26,27) We recently built membrane-anchor decorated DNA-origami 24 helix bundle (24HB) curls that form spring-like filaments (DNA nanosprings) on vesicles in response to the addition of linker strands, generating nanospring-scaffolded membrane tubules. (23) Using similar design principles, here we constructed thinner 6HB and 12HB DNA curls that can polymerize into left-handed nanosprings with helical pitches (53 and 54 nm) and diameters (26 and 22 nm) nearly identical to those of 24HB nanosprings (Figure 1a and Figures S1 and S2). Additionally, we outfitted the interior of each monomeric DNA curl (approximately three-quarters of a turn, 100 nm contour length) with a maximum of 24 (24HB) or 16 (12HB and 6HB) single-stranded DNA “handles” for the attachment of amphipathic peptides (adapted from the N-terminus α-helix motif of snf7) as membrane anchors (Figure 1b). (23,28) We expect the three types of nanosprings to have distinct stiffness and tunable membrane anchor density, thus allowing for a systematic investigation of the DNA structures’ membrane binding and tubulation behaviors.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Designs and assembly of DNA-origami nanosprings of varying thicknesses. (a) Cartoon models depicting the 24, 12, and 6 helix-bundle (HB) DNA curls and their linker-triggered polymerization into nanosprings. Each DNA double-helix and DNA-conjugated amphipathic peptide (16 per monomer) are represented by a curved gray rod and a purple sphere, respectively. Negative-stain TEM images of peptide-labeled DNA curls and nanosprings are located next to the corresponding schematics. Scale bars = 100 nm. (b) Top views of DNA-curl models (top) and schematic drawings of the Cy5-modified DNA-peptide conjugate that decorate the interiors of the DNA curls (bottom). (c) An agarose gel resolving DNA curls with varying numbers of inward-facing ssDNA handles (Handle #) in the presence and absence of Cy5-modified antihandle-peptide (AH-peptide) conjugates. Bands that contain monomeric DNA curls and misfolded aggregates are boxed and labeled with asterisks (*) and daggers (†), respectively. Pseudocolor fluorescence: red = Cy5, green = ethidium bromide.

Results and Discussion

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

We first examined the assembly and labeling of the DNA nanosprings in aqueous solutions. Negative-stain transmission electron microscopy (TEM) showed that the purified, well-folded DNA curl monomers exhibited contour lengths (24HB: 101 ± 4 nm, 12HB: 81 ± 5 nm, and 6HB: 81 ± 5 nm), thicknesses (24HB: 13 ± 1 nm, 12HB: 8 ± 1 nm, and 6HB: 7 ± 1 nm), and linker-strand-triggered polymerization capability in accordance with the design (Table S1 and Figure S3). All three types of nanosprings showed comparable helical pitches (24HB, 80 ± 9 nm; 12HB, 70 ± 5 nm; and 6HB, 75 ± 5 nm) that are larger than the designed values, likely due to the global left-handed twisting not accounted for by our bending model (29) and the DNA structures splaying on TEM grids. The inner diameters of 24HB, 12HB, and 6HB springs measured 26 ± 5 nm, 16 ± 6 nm, and 8 ± 2 nm, respectively, suggesting DNA filaments with smaller cross sections were more prone to structural distortion (Table S2 and Figure S3). The increased flexibility associated with thinner DNA filaments is qualitatively corroborated by the measured persistence lengths of the nanosprings (Table S3). We note that the DNA springs’ stiffness can also be reduced by self-assembly errors that occur during the folding and polymerization of the DNA curls. (30,31) Hybridizing Cy5-modified DNA-peptide conjugates to the inner handles of DNA curls yielded mostly monomeric DNA structures with Cy5 signal proportional to the number of handles (0, 7, 16, or 24) per monomer, as confirmed by nondenaturing agarose gel electrophoresis (Figure 1c and Figure S4).
Next, we tested the binding affinity of the 24HB, 12HB, and 6HB DNA curls (4 nM) with 0, 7, or 16 peptides toward rhodamine-labeled LUVs (39.7 μM 1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine or DOPC, 0.3 μM 1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine-N-(lissamine rhodamine B sulfonyl) or Rhod-PE), extruded through a polycarbonate  membrane with a pore size of 200 nm (mean vesicle diameter: ∼134 nm, determined by TEM). This 10 000:1 lipid-to-curl ratio translates to ∼15 curls per average-sized LUV (consisting of ∼150 000 lipid) in a hypothetical scenario where all DNA curls were associated with membrane. Using our previously established protocol, (23) the DNA curls and vesicles were incubated for 1 h at 4 °C in 10 mM MgCl2 and 400 mM KCl buffer solution to allow DNA structures to bind to membrane without changes in osmolarity (Figure 2a). Immediately following, mixtures underwent an isopycnic centrifugation to isolate the LUV-bound DNA structures from the unbound ones. Fluorescence scans revealed that stronger lipid-DNA colocalization is generally associated with increasing number of peptide labels and decreasing DNA-curl thickness (Figure 2b, with the complete data set and quantification shown in Figure S5). This can be explained by the better accessibility of the peptides on the thinner DNA curls, consistent with the notion that membrane anchors can be sterically blocked by bulky DNA-origami structures. (32,33) Additionally, the flexibility to “breath” may augment the readiness of the less stiff curls to interact their amphipathic interiors with membranes of different curvatures and tensions. A negative-stain TEM study on unpurified mixtures of DNA curls and LUVs corroborated the centrifugation results. Here, thinner DNA curls labeled with more peptides left noticeably fewer unbound monomers on the TEM grids; in all TEM specimens there were no apparent reduction in the concentration of LUVs to suggest DNA-curl induced aggregation. Interestingly, only 12HB and 6HB curls carrying 16 peptides per monomer led to tubule formation after 1 h of incubations in the absence of linker strands (Figure S6). This positive correlation between membrane affinity and linker-independent vesicle tubulation is consistent with previous findings that high membrane coverage by curved DNA structures is a prerequisite for vesicle tubulation. (22,23)

Figure 2

Figure 2. Large unilamellar vesicle (LUV) binding and tubulation activities of self-assembling DNA curls of varying thicknesses and membrane anchor densities. (a) Schematic illustration of the experiment procedures used to test DNA-curl induced LUV tubulation with and without linkers. (b) Fractionated density gradients containing Cy5-labeled DNA curls with 16 or 0 amphipathic peptides per monomer (Pep #) and rhodamine-labeled LUVs after isopycnic centrifugation. Pseudocolor fluorescence of recovered fractions: red = Cy5, blue = rhodamine. Smaller numbers denote lighter fractions. (c) Normalized abundances of lipid tubules generated by 24, 12, or 6 helix-bundle (HB) curls with 16 or 7 peptides per monomer in the presence or absence of linker. For each measurement, 750–2000 vesicles were surveyed. (d) Representative negative-stain TEM images of LUVs tubulated by DNA curls (16 peptide per monomer) of different thicknesses, with and without DNA linkers. Scale bars = 400 nm.

After the initial binding tests at 4 °C for 1 h, we held the mixture of vesicles and DNA curls at 30 °C for another 16 h in the presence or absence of linker strands (Figure 2a) and analyzed the resulting lipid tubules using negative-stain TEM. In general, without linker strands, tubulation efficiency of DNA curls positively correlated with their membrane binding affinity (Figure 2c and Figures S5 and S7–S9). Namely, all three types of curls labeled with 16 peptides generated appreciable amounts of tubules, with more flexible structural designs resulting in higher tubulation efficiency (24HB, 2.7%; 12HB, 6.5%; 6HB, 8.5%; quantified as number of tubules/number of vesicles), whereas their 7-peptide-labeled counterparts generated little to no tubules (24HB, 0.3%; 12HB, 1.2%; 6HB, 0.6%). When the DNA coatings were discernible on the electron micrographs, we found that these lipid tubules were densely covered by irregular patterns of DNA curls. In contrast, having linker strands during the extended incubation period induced the formation of nanosprings and improved tubulation efficiency in all cases (Figure 2c, d). For example, the 16-peptide-labeled 24HB, 12HB, and 6HB nanosprings led to tubulation efficiency of ∼7.1, ∼11.1, and ∼9.0%, respectively. However, polymerizing handle-less DNA curls with free peptides did not generate tubulation (Figure S10). Surprisingly, polymerized 12HB curls produced more tubules than the 6HB curls, despite the latter being stronger LUV binders in the monomeric form. We initially speculated that this is because the linker strands promote tubulation partially by recruiting additional DNA-curl monomers to the membrane; thus, tubulation by stiffer springs benefits from a larger supply of free monomers left over in solution after the initial binding. This also seemed to explain the larger boost in tubulation efficiency when stiffer DNA curls were polymerized on membrane—24HB, 12HB, and 6HB curls equipped with 16 peptides produced 160, 71, and 5.8% more tubules with linker strands added, respectively. However, this hypothesis does not explain the tubulation efficiencies of 7-peptide-labeled structures, where the thinner, more lipophilic curls saw a larger tubulation boost upon polymerization (Figure S11). Therefore, it seemed that all curls must reach certain surface coverage for membrane remodeling to happen efficiently, (22,23) and once this requirement is met, stiffer structures may have advantages in tubulation. For example, with 7 or 16 peptides per monomer, tubulation by the 24HB curl was inferior to that by the 12HB and 6HB curls because of its poor membrane affinity. However, modifying each monomer with 24 peptides brought 24HB curl’s membrane coverage to a level comparable to the 7-peptide-labeled 12HB and 6HB curls; under this condition, the 24HB structure produced 4–8 fold more tubes than the 12HB and 6HB curls (Figure S5). Nevertheless, with the same peptide-labeling density, DNA-to-lipid ratio, and polymerizing condition, we found the 12HB curls to be the best-performing membrane-deforming structure. Increasing Mg2+ concentration from 10 to 15 mM further enhanced the 12HB curls’ tubulation efficiency from 11.1 to 15.6% (16 peptide per monomer) and from 4.7 to 10.8% (7 peptide per monomer) as well as producing longer tubules with average lengths beyond 500 nm (Figures S12–S15 and Table S4), likely due to more efficient linker-induced nanospring formation under higher divalent cation concentration.
Although the TEM studies do not permit direct visualization of tubulation kinetics, examining the morphologies of lipid tubules can give clues as to their formation mechanism. For example, although polymerizing 24HB curls on LUVs yielded tubules with considerable width heterogeneity, the tubules with a dense DNA coat generally had widths that conform to the inner diameter of the nanosprings, suggesting that the nanosprings control the tubule width only when sufficient surface density is achieved. (23) Therefore, we expected the 12HB and 6HB nanosprings, because of their thinner filaments and greater compressibility (i.e., smaller spring constant), to cover the membrane surfaces with high density and result in better controlled lipid-tubule diameters. Our analyses on lipid-tubule widths and apparent DNA-nanospring pitches (peak-to-peak distance of the DNA coat) showed that this was indeed the case (Figure 3). Labeled with 16 peptides per monomer, 12HB and 6HB nanosprings produced tubules with diameters of 28.2 ± 4.4 and 27.1 ± 3.6 nm, respectively, which are notably more homogeneous than those produced by the 24HB nanosprings (23.7 ± 7.2 nm) in the same conditions (Figure 3b). The 12HB nanosprings on lipid tubules also showed much smaller and monodispersed apparent pitches (19.2 ± 2.5 nm) relative to 24HB nanosprings (34.9 ± 17.7 nm), consistent with our expectation (Figure 3c). These comparisons held true when peptide labels were reduced to seven per monomer, albeit with overall reduced tube abundance and homogeneity (Figure S16 and Table S4). Enhancing the membrane affinity of 24HB curls by labeling each monomer with 24 peptides and doubling the DNA-to-lipid ratio produced more tubes with widths approximating the inner diameter of the nanosprings. However, the overall tube-width homogeneity was still less than those produced by the 12HB and 6HB springs (Figure S16). High-magnification TEM images revealed that the majority of lipid tubules formed by the 12HB nanosprings were coated by intertwined triplexes of modestly compressed nanosprings, each with a mean helical pitch ≈ 47 nm that translates to an apparent pitch of ∼16 nm. This means such tubules were nearly completely covered by DNA, considering the ∼11 nm designed thickness of the 12HB filaments. By contrast, 24HB nanosprings compressed to a comparable level (mean helical pitch ≈ 42 nm) formed primarily duplexes of ∼21 nm apparent pitches (Figure 4); in fact, most 24HB springs remained uncompressed, leading to a larger percentage of uncovered membrane surfaces (Figure S17). In other words, comparing to the thicker, stiffer 24HB nanosprings, the thinner, more flexible 12HB nanosprings enforced stricter confinement of tubule width by forming a denser DNA-spring coating on lipid tubes as a result of higher membrane affinity, and greater susceptibility to compression and multiplex formation. This also embedded nearly 50% more peptides into the same length of tube (Figure 4), which introduced greater leaflet asymmetry to promote tubulation (Figure S18). Although most of the 6HB filaments did not generate enough contrast under TEM to be measured on membrane, we can extrapolate and expect a dense DNA coating on the lipid tubules, explaining the best uniformity of tube diameter produced by the three types of nanosprings.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Impact of DNA-nanospring thickness on lipid-tubule morphologies. (a) TEM images of lipid tubules covered by 24, 12, and 6 helix-bundle (HB) nanosprings. Scale bars = 100 nm. (b) Average tubule widths as a result of polymerizing 24, 12, and 6HB DNA curls (16 amphipathic peptides per monomer) mixed with LUVs. Means are weighted for the tubule lengths. Error bars show standard deviations. (c) Scatter plots showing the widths of lipid tubules versus the apparent pitches of the tubule-associating 24 and 12HB nanosprings (defined as the length of nanospring-coated tubule divided by the cumulative helical turns of DNA filaments).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Cartoon models and the corresponding TEM images contrasting the compressed 24 and 12 helix-bundle (HB) DNA nanosprings (gray, blue, and red) intertwining around lipid tubules (tan). The measured apparent and actual pitches of nanosprings are labeled at the bottom and top of each model, respectively. The “see-through” box reveals the different surface densities of peptides (purple dots) introduced by the 24 and 12HB nanosprings. Scale bar = 100 nm.

Conclusions

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Nature has evolved membrane-deforming proteins that are not only efficient and dynamic, but also under layers of regulation. (6,7,34,35) When engineering artificial systems to mimic such elegance of nature, it is therefore important to understand the design parameters that modulate the membrane remodeling in vitro. By varying the curvature of a stiff (20HB) DNA structure labeled with cholesterols, Franquelim et al. found that a modest bend led to the most effective GUV tubulation. (22) Here we showed that the filament thickness of DNA nanospring profoundly impacted the frequency of LUV tubulation events and the morphology of the lipid tubules. Clearly, further investigation is needed to fully elucidate the DNA-nanospring-induced membrane deformation mechanism (e.g., by controlling membrane curvature and tension, by monitoring the deformation kinetics). With this in mind, the main contribution of this work is establishing stiffness as a tunable parameter that affects vesicle tubulation outcome and providing a practical guide for designing and choosing from an assortment of “strong” and “weak” DNA nanosprings for membrane deformation. Our findings implied that the abilities to (i) promiscuously bind membranes with various curvatures and (ii) readily propagate into a dense coat of nanosprings on membrane surfaces are key for curved DNA structures to efficiently draw structurally defined lipid tubules from vesicles. This insight will inform the future implementation of more advanced membrane deforming machineries that could, for example, carry specific ligands to target curved biological membranes and constrict membrane tubules to enable scission.

Experimental Section

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Materials

DNA oligonucleotides were purchased from Integrated DNA Technologies (see Supporting Information for sequences). DNA-peptide conjugates were purchased from Bio-Synthesis. Lipids and liposome extrusion filters were purchased from Avanti Polar Lipids. TEM grids and uranyl formate were purchased from Electron Microscopy Sciences. JM109 E. coli cells and VCSM13 helper phage were purchased from Agilent Technologies. Ultracentrifuge tubes were purchased from Beckman Coulter. Iodixanol was purchased from Stemcell Technologies. Other chemicals and Amicon filters were purchased from Millipore Sigma.

DNA-Nanospring Design and Preparation

Three-dimensional models of DNA-origami curls were initially built in Autodesk Maya, which guided the DNA-origami design by caDNAno (cadnano.org). (36) The models and design diagrams are available in Figure S1 and S2. M13-derived scaffold DNA strands (8064 and 7308-nt long) were produced using E. coli and bacteriophages as previously described. (37) The pBlueScript-derived scaffold (3024-nt long) was prepared with JM109 cells and VCSM13 using a single-stranded phagemid rescue protocol recommended by the manufacturer. The DNA curls were folded from a mixture of scaffold strand (40 nM) and staple strands (240 nM each) in a TE buffer (pH 8) containing 10 (for 6HB) or 15 mM (for 12 and 24HB) MgCl2 using a 36-h thermal annealing (80–24 °C) program. Correctly folded DNA curls were purified and concentrated by rate-zonal centrifugation and Amicon filtration. (38) To functionalize the DNA structures, purified curls displaying handles were then incubated with peptide or Cy5-modified antihandles at antihandle-to-handle ratio of 3:1. The excessive antihandles were removed by polyethylene-glycol (PEG) fractionation. (39) To form nanosprings, we added linker strands to the peptide/Cy5-labeled DNA curls in 20-fold molar excess; the mixture was incubated at 30 °C for 16 h.

Gel Electrophoresis

Equal molar amount of DNA curl monomers (with or without peptides and Cy5 labels) were loaded into separate lanes of a 1.8% agarose gel casted with 0.5 × TBE buffer containing 10 mM MgCl2. The gel was run in the same buffer solution at 5 V/cm for 3 h before being imaged on a Typhoon FLA 9500 scanner using laser and filter settings for the Cy5-fluorescence channel. It was then stained by ethidium bromide (EtBr), destained, and imaged again using settings for the Cy5 and EtBr channels.

DNA-Curl-Mediated Vesicle Tubulation

LUVs (99.2% DOPC, 0.8% Rhod-PE, 15 mM total lipid) were prepared via lipid-film rehydration followed by extrusion. Unless noted otherwise, these vesicles (final lipid concentration = 40 μM) were mixed with peptide-labeled, PEG-fractionated DNA curls at 10 000:1 lipid-to-curl ratio in a 25 mM HEPES buffer (pH 7.5) containing 400 mM KCl and 10 mM MgCl2, incubated for 1 h at 4 °C (to allow binding), and brought to 30 °C for an 16-h incubation in the presence (20-fold excess, to trigger polymerization on membrane) or absence (for the study of linker-independent tubulation) of linker strands.

Isopycnic Centrifugation

One hundred microliters of preincubated LUVs and DNA curls (prepared as described above) was diluted to a final volume of 300 μL, which consisted of 30% iodixanol, 25 mM HEPES (pH 7.5), 10 mM MgCl2, and 400 mM KCl. This mixture was transferred to a 0.8 mL ultracentrifuge tube, on top of which six layers (60 μL each) of solutions with decreasing iodixanol concentrations (26–6%, with 4% decrement per layer) were added. The content of this tube was spun at 48 000 rpm at 4 °C in a swing bucket rotor (SW 55 Ti) for 5 h, fractionated from top to bottom into 13 wells of a 96-well plate (∼52 μL per fraction), and imaged on a Typhoon FLA 9500 scanner in Cy5 and rhodamine channels.

Transmission Electron Microscopy

A drop (∼5 μL) of sample was deposited on a glow-discharged carbon-coated copper grid and allowed to adsorb for 1–2 min before blotted away. Negative-stain was achieved by adding 2% uranyl formate solution to the grid and incubating for 1–3 min. After blotting away the stain, the grid was air-dried and imaged using a JEOL JEM-1400 plus microscope operated at 80 kV. Images were acquired by a 4k × 3k CCD camera (Advanced Microscopy Technologies) and analyzed by ImageJ (National Institutes of Health) for tubule abundance and dimensions, and EasyWorm (40) for persistence lengths.

Supporting Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acsami.9b05401.

  • Designs of DNA-origami curls, DNA sequences, materials and methods, and additional data and models (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
    • Michael W Grome - Department of Cell Biology, Yale University School of Medicine, and Nanobiology Institute, Yale University, 850 West Campus Drive, West Haven, Connecticut 06516, United States
    • Zhao Zhang - Department of Cell Biology, Yale University School of Medicine, and Nanobiology Institute, Yale University, 850 West Campus Drive, West Haven, Connecticut 06516, United States
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

The authors acknowledge a National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director’s New Innovator Award (DP2-GM114830) and a Yale University faculty startup fund to C.L. as well as an NIH training grant (T32-GM007499) that supports M.W.G.

References

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article references 40 other publications.

  1. 1
    McMahon, H. T.; Gallop, J. L. Membrane Curvature and Mechanisms of Dynamic Cell Membrane Remodelling. Nature 2005, 438, 590596,  DOI: 10.1038/nature04396
  2. 2
    McMahon, H. T.; Boucrot, E. Membrane Curvature at a Glance. J. Cell Sci. 2015, 128, 10651070,  DOI: 10.1242/jcs.114454
  3. 3
    Bassereau, P.; Jin, R.; Baumgart, T.; Deserno, M.; Dimova, R.; Frolov, V. A.; Bashkirov, P. V.; Grubmuller, H.; Jahn, R.; Risselada, H. J.; Johannes, L.; Kozlov, M. M.; Lipowsky, R.; Pucadyil, T. J.; Zeno, W. F.; Stachowiak, J. C.; Stamou, D.; Breuer, A.; Lauritsen, L.; Simon, C.; Sykes, C.; Voth, G. A.; Weikl, T. R. The 2018 Biomembrane Curvature and Remodeling Roadmap. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2018, 51, 343001,  DOI: 10.1088/1361-6463/aacb98
  4. 4
    Jarsch, I. K.; Daste, F.; Gallop, J. L. Membrane Curvature in Cell Biology: An Integration of Molecular Mechanisms. J. Cell Biol. 2016, 214, 375387,  DOI: 10.1083/jcb.201604003
  5. 5
    Frost, A.; Unger, V. M.; De Camilli, P. The Bar Domain Superfamily: Membrane-Molding Macromolecules. Cell 2009, 137, 191196,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.04.010
  6. 6
    Hurley, J. H.; Hanson, P. I. Membrane Budding and Scission by the Escrt Machinery: It’s All in the Neck. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2010, 11, 556566,  DOI: 10.1038/nrm2937
  7. 7
    Ford, M. G.; Mills, I. G.; Peter, B. J.; Vallis, Y.; Praefcke, G. J.; Evans, P. R.; McMahon, H. T. Curvature of Clathrin-Coated Pits Driven by Epsin. Nature 2002, 419, 361366,  DOI: 10.1038/nature01020
  8. 8
    Roux, A.; Cappello, G.; Cartaud, J.; Prost, J.; Goud, B.; Bassereau, P. A Minimal System Allowing Tubulation with Molecular Motors Pulling on Giant Liposomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2002, 99, 53945399,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.082107299
  9. 9
    Takei, K.; Slepnev, V. I.; Haucke, V.; De Camilli, P. Functional Partnership between Amphiphysin and Dynamin in Clathrin-Mediated Endocytosis. Nat. Cell Biol. 1999, 1, 3339,  DOI: 10.1038/9004
  10. 10
    Seeman, N. C. Nucleic Acid Junctions and Lattices. J. Theor. Biol. 1982, 99, 237247,  DOI: 10.1016/0022-5193(82)90002-9
  11. 11
    Rothemund, P. W. Folding DNA to Create Nanoscale Shapes and Patterns. Nature 2006, 440, 297302,  DOI: 10.1038/nature04586
  12. 12
    Douglas, S. M.; Dietz, H.; Liedl, T.; Hogberg, B.; Graf, F.; Shih, W. M. Self-Assembly of DNA into Nanoscale Three-Dimensional Shapes. Nature 2009, 459, 414418,  DOI: 10.1038/nature08016
  13. 13
    Dietz, H.; Douglas, S. M.; Shih, W. M. Folding DNA into Twisted and Curved Nanoscale Shapes. Science 2009, 325, 725730,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1174251
  14. 14
    Seeman, N. C.; Sleiman, H. F. DNA Nanotechnology. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2018, 3, 17068,  DOI: 10.1038/natrevmats.2017.68
  15. 15
    Hong, F.; Zhang, F.; Liu, Y.; Yan, H. DNA Origami: Scaffolds for Creating Higher Order Structures. Chem. Rev. 2017, 117, 1258412640,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00825
  16. 16
    Zhang, Z.; Yang, Y.; Pincet, F.; Llaguno, M. C.; Lin, C. Placing and Shaping Liposomes with Reconfigurable DNA Nanocages. Nat. Chem. 2017, 9, 653659,  DOI: 10.1038/nchem.2802
  17. 17
    Czogalla, A.; Kauert, D. J.; Franquelim, H. G.; Uzunova, V.; Zhang, Y.; Seidel, R.; Schwille, P. Amphipathic DNA Origami Nanoparticles to Scaffold and Deform Lipid Membrane Vesicles. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 65016505,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201501173
  18. 18
    Kocabey, S.; Kempter, S.; List, J.; Xing, Y.; Bae, W.; Schiffels, D.; Shih, W. M.; Simmel, F. C.; Liedl, T. Membrane-Assisted Growth of DNA Origami Nanostructure Arrays. ACS Nano 2015, 9, 35303539,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.5b00161
  19. 19
    Howorka, S. Nanotechnology. Changing of the Guard. Science 2016, 352, 890891,  DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf5154
  20. 20
    Birkholz, O.; Burns, J. R.; Richter, C. P.; Psathaki, O. E.; Howorka, S.; Piehler, J. Multi-Functional DNA Nanostructures That Puncture and Remodel Lipid Membranes into Hybrid Materials. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 1521,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-02905-w
  21. 21
    Gopfrich, K.; Zettl, T.; Meijering, A. E.; Hernandez-Ainsa, S.; Kocabey, S.; Liedl, T.; Keyser, U. F. DNA-Tile Structures Induce Ionic Currents through Lipid Membranes. Nano Lett. 2015, 15, 31343138,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b00189
  22. 22
    Franquelim, H. G.; Khmelinskaia, A.; Sobczak, J. P.; Dietz, H.; Schwille, P. Membrane Sculpting by Curved DNA Origami Scaffolds. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 811,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03198-9
  23. 23
    Grome, M. W.; Zhang, Z.; Pincet, F.; Lin, C. Vesicle Tubulation with Self-Assembling DNA Nanosprings. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2018, 57, 53305334,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201800141
  24. 24
    Wang, T.; Schiffels, D.; Cuesta, S. M.; Fygenson, D. K.; Seeman, N. C. Design and Characterization of 1d Nanotubes and 2d Periodic Arrays Self-Assembled from DNA Multi-Helix Bundles. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 16061616,  DOI: 10.1021/ja207976q
  25. 25
    Schiffels, D.; Liedl, T.; Fygenson, D. K. Nanoscale Structure and Microscale Stiffness of DNA Nanotubes. ACS Nano 2013, 7, 67006710,  DOI: 10.1021/nn401362p
  26. 26
    Kauert, D. J.; Kurth, T.; Liedl, T.; Seidel, R. Direct Mechanical Measurements Reveal the Material Properties of Three-Dimensional DNA Origami. Nano Lett. 2011, 11, 55585563,  DOI: 10.1021/nl203503s
  27. 27
    Castro, C. E.; Su, H. J.; Marras, A. E.; Zhou, L.; Johnson, J. Mechanical Design of DNA Nanostructures. Nanoscale 2015, 7, 59135921,  DOI: 10.1039/C4NR07153K
  28. 28
    Buchkovich, N. J.; Henne, W. M.; Tang, S.; Emr, S. D. Essential N-Terminal Insertion Motif Anchors the Escrt-Iii Filament During Mvb Vesicle Formation. Dev. Cell 2013, 27, 201214,  DOI: 10.1016/j.devcel.2013.09.009
  29. 29
    Kim, D. N.; Kilchherr, F.; Dietz, H.; Bathe, M. Quantitative Prediction of 3d Solution Shape and Flexibility of Nucleic Acid Nanostructures. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012, 40, 28622868,  DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkr1173
  30. 30
    Myhrvold, C.; Baym, M.; Hanikel, N.; Ong, L. L.; Gootenberg, J. S.; Yin, P. Barcode Extension for Analysis and Reconstruction of Structures. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 14698,  DOI: 10.1038/ncomms14698
  31. 31
    Benson, E.; Mohammed, A.; Rayneau-Kirkhope, D.; Gadin, A.; Orponen, P.; Hogberg, B. Effects of Design Choices on the Stiffness of Wireframe DNA Origami Structures. ACS Nano 2018, 12, 92919299,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.8b04148
  32. 32
    Khmelinskaia, A.; Franquelim, H. G.; Petrov, E. P.; Schwille, P. Effect of Anchor Positioning on Binding and Diffusion of Elongated 3d DNA Nanostructures on Lipid Membranes. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2016, 49, 194001,  DOI: 10.1088/0022-3727/49/19/194001
  33. 33
    Khmelinskaia, A.; Mucksch, J.; Petrov, E. P.; Franquelim, H. G.; Schwille, P. Control of Membrane Binding and Diffusion of Cholesteryl-Modified DNA Origami Nanostructures by DNA Spacers. Langmuir 2018, 34, 1492114931,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b01850
  34. 34
    Nguyen, N.; Shteyn, V.; Melia, T. J. Sensing Membrane Curvature in Macroautophagy. J. Mol. Biol. 2017, 429, 457472,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2017.01.006
  35. 35
    Bhatia, V. K.; Hatzakis, N. S.; Stamou, D. A Unifying Mechanism Accounts for Sensing of Membrane Curvature by Bar Domains, Amphipathic Helices and Membrane-Anchored Proteins. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2010, 21, 381390,  DOI: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2009.12.004
  36. 36
    Douglas, S. M.; Marblestone, A. H.; Teerapittayanon, S.; Vazquez, A.; Church, G. M.; Shih, W. M. Rapid Prototyping of 3d DNA-Origami Shapes with Cadnano. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37, 50015006,  DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkp436
  37. 37
    Bellot, G.; McClintock, M. A.; Chou, J. J.; Shih, W. M. DNA Nanotubes for Nmr Structure Determination of Membrane Proteins. Nat. Protoc. 2013, 8, 755770,  DOI: 10.1038/nprot.2013.037
  38. 38
    Lin, C.; Perrault, S. D.; Kwak, M.; Graf, F.; Shih, W. M. Purification of DNA-Origami Nanostructures by Rate-Zonal Centrifugation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013, 41, e40,  DOI: 10.1093/nar/gks1070
  39. 39
    Stahl, E.; Martin, T. G.; Praetorius, F.; Dietz, H. Facile and Scalable Preparation of Pure and Dense DNA Origami Solutions. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2014, 53, 1273512740,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201405991
  40. 40
    Lamour, G.; Kirkegaard, J. B.; Li, H.; Knowles, T. P.; Gsponer, J. Easyworm: An Open-Source Software Tool to Determine the Mechanical Properties of Worm-Like Chains. Source Code Biol. Med. 2014, 9, 16,  DOI: 10.1186/1751-0473-9-16

Cited By

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article is cited by 20 publications.

  1. Pengfei Zhan, Andreas Peil, Qiao Jiang, Dongfang Wang, Shikufa Mousavi, Qiancheng Xiong, Qi Shen, Yingxu Shang, Baoquan Ding, Chenxiang Lin, Yonggang Ke, Na Liu. Recent Advances in DNA Origami-Engineered Nanomaterials and Applications. Chemical Reviews 2023, 123 (7) , 3976-4050. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.3c00028
  2. Chun Xie, Zhekun Chen, Kuiting Chen, Yingxin Hu, Linqiang Pan. Regulating the Polymerization of DNA Structures via Allosteric Control of Monomers. ACS Nano 2023, 17 (2) , 1505-1510. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.2c10456
  3. Yunyun Xu, Qian Shi, Kui Huang, Yang Yang. DNA Soccer-Ball Framework Templated Liposome Formation with Precisely Regulated Nucleation Seeds. ACS Nano 2022, 16 (7) , 11004-11010. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.2c03575
  4. Sioned F. Jones, Himanshu Joshi, Stephen J. Terry, Jonathan R. Burns, Aleksei Aksimentiev, Ulrike S. Eggert, Stefan Howorka. Hydrophobic Interactions between DNA Duplexes and Synthetic and Biological Membranes. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2021, 143 (22) , 8305-8313. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.0c13235
  5. Jae Young Lee, Jae Gyung Lee, Giseok Yun, Chanseok Lee, Young-Joo Kim, Kyung Soo Kim, Tae Hwi Kim, Do-Nyun Kim. Rapid Computational Analysis of DNA Origami Assemblies at Near-Atomic Resolution. ACS Nano 2021, 15 (1) , 1002-1015. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c07717
  6. Xueting Wang, Jia Yu, Wenjie Lan, Shuo Yang, Shiqing Wang, Yue Mi, Qing Ye, Yuan Li, Yin Liu. Novel Stable DNA Nanoscale Material and Its Application on Specific Enrichment of DNA. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2020, 12 (17) , 19834-19839. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.0c02242
  7. Yihao Zhou, Jinyi Dong, Qiangbin Wang. Fabricating higher-order functional DNA origami structures to reveal biological processes at multiple scales. NPG Asia Materials 2023, 15 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41427-023-00470-3
  8. Shoji Iwabuchi, Shin‐ichiro M. Nomura, Yusuke Sato. Surfactant‐Assisted Purification of Hydrophobic DNA Nanostructures. ChemBioChem 2023, 24 (4) https://doi.org/10.1002/cbic.202200568
  9. Alena Khmelinskaia, Petra Schwille, Henri G. Franquelim. Binding and Characterization of DNA Origami Nanostructures on Lipid Membranes. 2023, 231-255. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-3028-0_14
  10. Beatrice Ramm, Alena Khmelinskaia, Henri G. Franquelim, Petra Schwille. Patterning DNA Origami on Membranes Through Protein Self-Organization. 2023, 411-431. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-9891-1_22
  11. Longfei Liu, Qiancheng Xiong, Chun Xie, Frederic Pincet, Chenxiang Lin. Actuating tension-loaded DNA clamps drives membrane tubulation. Science Advances 2022, 8 (41) https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.add1830
  12. Lorenzo Olivi, Mareike Berger, Ramon N. P. Creyghton, Nicola De Franceschi, Cees Dekker, Bela M. Mulder, Nico J. Claassens, Pieter Rein ten Wolde, John van der Oost. Towards a synthetic cell cycle. Nature Communications 2021, 12 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24772-8
  13. Swarup Dey, Chunhai Fan, Kurt V. Gothelf, Jiang Li, Chenxiang Lin, Longfei Liu, Na Liu, Minke A. D. Nijenhuis, Barbara Saccà, Friedrich C. Simmel, Hao Yan, Pengfei Zhan. DNA origami. Nature Reviews Methods Primers 2021, 1 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-020-00009-8
  14. Qunye He, Yanfei Liu, Ke Li, Yuwei Wu, Ting Wang, Yifu Tan, Ting Jiang, Xiaoqin Liu, Zhenbao Liu. Deoxyribonucleic acid anchored on cell membranes for biomedical application. Biomaterials Science 2021, 9 (20) , 6691-6717. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1BM01057C
  15. Jiafang Piao, Wei Yuan, Yuanchen Dong. Recent Progress of DNA Nanostructures on Amphiphilic Membranes. Macromolecular Bioscience 2021, 21 (5) https://doi.org/10.1002/mabi.202000440
  16. Lingyu Feng, Jiang Li, Jielin Sun, Lihua Wang, Chunhai Fan, Jianlei Shen. Recent Advances of DNA Nanostructure‐Based Cell Membrane Engineering. Advanced Healthcare Materials 2021, 10 (6) https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.202001718
  17. Henri G. Franquelim, Hendrik Dietz, Petra Schwille. Reversible membrane deformations by straight DNA origami filaments. Soft Matter 2021, 17 (2) , 276-287. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0SM00150C
  18. Tao Zhang. DNA origami-based microtubule analogue. Nanotechnology 2020, 31 (50) , 50LT01. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6528/abb395
  19. Runjhun Saran, Yong Wang, Isaac T. S. Li. Mechanical Flexibility of DNA: A Quintessential Tool for DNA Nanotechnology. Sensors 2020, 20 (24) , 7019. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20247019
  20. Qi Shen, Michael W. Grome, Yang Yang, Chenxiang Lin. Engineering Lipid Membranes with Programmable DNA Nanostructures. Advanced Biosystems 2020, 4 (1) https://doi.org/10.1002/adbi.201900215
  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Designs and assembly of DNA-origami nanosprings of varying thicknesses. (a) Cartoon models depicting the 24, 12, and 6 helix-bundle (HB) DNA curls and their linker-triggered polymerization into nanosprings. Each DNA double-helix and DNA-conjugated amphipathic peptide (16 per monomer) are represented by a curved gray rod and a purple sphere, respectively. Negative-stain TEM images of peptide-labeled DNA curls and nanosprings are located next to the corresponding schematics. Scale bars = 100 nm. (b) Top views of DNA-curl models (top) and schematic drawings of the Cy5-modified DNA-peptide conjugate that decorate the interiors of the DNA curls (bottom). (c) An agarose gel resolving DNA curls with varying numbers of inward-facing ssDNA handles (Handle #) in the presence and absence of Cy5-modified antihandle-peptide (AH-peptide) conjugates. Bands that contain monomeric DNA curls and misfolded aggregates are boxed and labeled with asterisks (*) and daggers (†), respectively. Pseudocolor fluorescence: red = Cy5, green = ethidium bromide.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Large unilamellar vesicle (LUV) binding and tubulation activities of self-assembling DNA curls of varying thicknesses and membrane anchor densities. (a) Schematic illustration of the experiment procedures used to test DNA-curl induced LUV tubulation with and without linkers. (b) Fractionated density gradients containing Cy5-labeled DNA curls with 16 or 0 amphipathic peptides per monomer (Pep #) and rhodamine-labeled LUVs after isopycnic centrifugation. Pseudocolor fluorescence of recovered fractions: red = Cy5, blue = rhodamine. Smaller numbers denote lighter fractions. (c) Normalized abundances of lipid tubules generated by 24, 12, or 6 helix-bundle (HB) curls with 16 or 7 peptides per monomer in the presence or absence of linker. For each measurement, 750–2000 vesicles were surveyed. (d) Representative negative-stain TEM images of LUVs tubulated by DNA curls (16 peptide per monomer) of different thicknesses, with and without DNA linkers. Scale bars = 400 nm.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Impact of DNA-nanospring thickness on lipid-tubule morphologies. (a) TEM images of lipid tubules covered by 24, 12, and 6 helix-bundle (HB) nanosprings. Scale bars = 100 nm. (b) Average tubule widths as a result of polymerizing 24, 12, and 6HB DNA curls (16 amphipathic peptides per monomer) mixed with LUVs. Means are weighted for the tubule lengths. Error bars show standard deviations. (c) Scatter plots showing the widths of lipid tubules versus the apparent pitches of the tubule-associating 24 and 12HB nanosprings (defined as the length of nanospring-coated tubule divided by the cumulative helical turns of DNA filaments).

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Cartoon models and the corresponding TEM images contrasting the compressed 24 and 12 helix-bundle (HB) DNA nanosprings (gray, blue, and red) intertwining around lipid tubules (tan). The measured apparent and actual pitches of nanosprings are labeled at the bottom and top of each model, respectively. The “see-through” box reveals the different surface densities of peptides (purple dots) introduced by the 24 and 12HB nanosprings. Scale bar = 100 nm.

  • References

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    This article references 40 other publications.

    1. 1
      McMahon, H. T.; Gallop, J. L. Membrane Curvature and Mechanisms of Dynamic Cell Membrane Remodelling. Nature 2005, 438, 590596,  DOI: 10.1038/nature04396
    2. 2
      McMahon, H. T.; Boucrot, E. Membrane Curvature at a Glance. J. Cell Sci. 2015, 128, 10651070,  DOI: 10.1242/jcs.114454
    3. 3
      Bassereau, P.; Jin, R.; Baumgart, T.; Deserno, M.; Dimova, R.; Frolov, V. A.; Bashkirov, P. V.; Grubmuller, H.; Jahn, R.; Risselada, H. J.; Johannes, L.; Kozlov, M. M.; Lipowsky, R.; Pucadyil, T. J.; Zeno, W. F.; Stachowiak, J. C.; Stamou, D.; Breuer, A.; Lauritsen, L.; Simon, C.; Sykes, C.; Voth, G. A.; Weikl, T. R. The 2018 Biomembrane Curvature and Remodeling Roadmap. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2018, 51, 343001,  DOI: 10.1088/1361-6463/aacb98
    4. 4
      Jarsch, I. K.; Daste, F.; Gallop, J. L. Membrane Curvature in Cell Biology: An Integration of Molecular Mechanisms. J. Cell Biol. 2016, 214, 375387,  DOI: 10.1083/jcb.201604003
    5. 5
      Frost, A.; Unger, V. M.; De Camilli, P. The Bar Domain Superfamily: Membrane-Molding Macromolecules. Cell 2009, 137, 191196,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.04.010
    6. 6
      Hurley, J. H.; Hanson, P. I. Membrane Budding and Scission by the Escrt Machinery: It’s All in the Neck. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2010, 11, 556566,  DOI: 10.1038/nrm2937
    7. 7
      Ford, M. G.; Mills, I. G.; Peter, B. J.; Vallis, Y.; Praefcke, G. J.; Evans, P. R.; McMahon, H. T. Curvature of Clathrin-Coated Pits Driven by Epsin. Nature 2002, 419, 361366,  DOI: 10.1038/nature01020
    8. 8
      Roux, A.; Cappello, G.; Cartaud, J.; Prost, J.; Goud, B.; Bassereau, P. A Minimal System Allowing Tubulation with Molecular Motors Pulling on Giant Liposomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2002, 99, 53945399,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.082107299
    9. 9
      Takei, K.; Slepnev, V. I.; Haucke, V.; De Camilli, P. Functional Partnership between Amphiphysin and Dynamin in Clathrin-Mediated Endocytosis. Nat. Cell Biol. 1999, 1, 3339,  DOI: 10.1038/9004
    10. 10
      Seeman, N. C. Nucleic Acid Junctions and Lattices. J. Theor. Biol. 1982, 99, 237247,  DOI: 10.1016/0022-5193(82)90002-9
    11. 11
      Rothemund, P. W. Folding DNA to Create Nanoscale Shapes and Patterns. Nature 2006, 440, 297302,  DOI: 10.1038/nature04586
    12. 12
      Douglas, S. M.; Dietz, H.; Liedl, T.; Hogberg, B.; Graf, F.; Shih, W. M. Self-Assembly of DNA into Nanoscale Three-Dimensional Shapes. Nature 2009, 459, 414418,  DOI: 10.1038/nature08016
    13. 13
      Dietz, H.; Douglas, S. M.; Shih, W. M. Folding DNA into Twisted and Curved Nanoscale Shapes. Science 2009, 325, 725730,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1174251
    14. 14
      Seeman, N. C.; Sleiman, H. F. DNA Nanotechnology. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2018, 3, 17068,  DOI: 10.1038/natrevmats.2017.68
    15. 15
      Hong, F.; Zhang, F.; Liu, Y.; Yan, H. DNA Origami: Scaffolds for Creating Higher Order Structures. Chem. Rev. 2017, 117, 1258412640,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00825
    16. 16
      Zhang, Z.; Yang, Y.; Pincet, F.; Llaguno, M. C.; Lin, C. Placing and Shaping Liposomes with Reconfigurable DNA Nanocages. Nat. Chem. 2017, 9, 653659,  DOI: 10.1038/nchem.2802
    17. 17
      Czogalla, A.; Kauert, D. J.; Franquelim, H. G.; Uzunova, V.; Zhang, Y.; Seidel, R.; Schwille, P. Amphipathic DNA Origami Nanoparticles to Scaffold and Deform Lipid Membrane Vesicles. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 65016505,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201501173
    18. 18
      Kocabey, S.; Kempter, S.; List, J.; Xing, Y.; Bae, W.; Schiffels, D.; Shih, W. M.; Simmel, F. C.; Liedl, T. Membrane-Assisted Growth of DNA Origami Nanostructure Arrays. ACS Nano 2015, 9, 35303539,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.5b00161
    19. 19
      Howorka, S. Nanotechnology. Changing of the Guard. Science 2016, 352, 890891,  DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf5154
    20. 20
      Birkholz, O.; Burns, J. R.; Richter, C. P.; Psathaki, O. E.; Howorka, S.; Piehler, J. Multi-Functional DNA Nanostructures That Puncture and Remodel Lipid Membranes into Hybrid Materials. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 1521,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-02905-w
    21. 21
      Gopfrich, K.; Zettl, T.; Meijering, A. E.; Hernandez-Ainsa, S.; Kocabey, S.; Liedl, T.; Keyser, U. F. DNA-Tile Structures Induce Ionic Currents through Lipid Membranes. Nano Lett. 2015, 15, 31343138,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b00189
    22. 22
      Franquelim, H. G.; Khmelinskaia, A.; Sobczak, J. P.; Dietz, H.; Schwille, P. Membrane Sculpting by Curved DNA Origami Scaffolds. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 811,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03198-9
    23. 23
      Grome, M. W.; Zhang, Z.; Pincet, F.; Lin, C. Vesicle Tubulation with Self-Assembling DNA Nanosprings. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2018, 57, 53305334,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201800141
    24. 24
      Wang, T.; Schiffels, D.; Cuesta, S. M.; Fygenson, D. K.; Seeman, N. C. Design and Characterization of 1d Nanotubes and 2d Periodic Arrays Self-Assembled from DNA Multi-Helix Bundles. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 16061616,  DOI: 10.1021/ja207976q
    25. 25
      Schiffels, D.; Liedl, T.; Fygenson, D. K. Nanoscale Structure and Microscale Stiffness of DNA Nanotubes. ACS Nano 2013, 7, 67006710,  DOI: 10.1021/nn401362p
    26. 26
      Kauert, D. J.; Kurth, T.; Liedl, T.; Seidel, R. Direct Mechanical Measurements Reveal the Material Properties of Three-Dimensional DNA Origami. Nano Lett. 2011, 11, 55585563,  DOI: 10.1021/nl203503s
    27. 27
      Castro, C. E.; Su, H. J.; Marras, A. E.; Zhou, L.; Johnson, J. Mechanical Design of DNA Nanostructures. Nanoscale 2015, 7, 59135921,  DOI: 10.1039/C4NR07153K
    28. 28
      Buchkovich, N. J.; Henne, W. M.; Tang, S.; Emr, S. D. Essential N-Terminal Insertion Motif Anchors the Escrt-Iii Filament During Mvb Vesicle Formation. Dev. Cell 2013, 27, 201214,  DOI: 10.1016/j.devcel.2013.09.009
    29. 29
      Kim, D. N.; Kilchherr, F.; Dietz, H.; Bathe, M. Quantitative Prediction of 3d Solution Shape and Flexibility of Nucleic Acid Nanostructures. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012, 40, 28622868,  DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkr1173
    30. 30
      Myhrvold, C.; Baym, M.; Hanikel, N.; Ong, L. L.; Gootenberg, J. S.; Yin, P. Barcode Extension for Analysis and Reconstruction of Structures. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 14698,  DOI: 10.1038/ncomms14698
    31. 31
      Benson, E.; Mohammed, A.; Rayneau-Kirkhope, D.; Gadin, A.; Orponen, P.; Hogberg, B. Effects of Design Choices on the Stiffness of Wireframe DNA Origami Structures. ACS Nano 2018, 12, 92919299,  DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.8b04148
    32. 32
      Khmelinskaia, A.; Franquelim, H. G.; Petrov, E. P.; Schwille, P. Effect of Anchor Positioning on Binding and Diffusion of Elongated 3d DNA Nanostructures on Lipid Membranes. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 2016, 49, 194001,  DOI: 10.1088/0022-3727/49/19/194001
    33. 33
      Khmelinskaia, A.; Mucksch, J.; Petrov, E. P.; Franquelim, H. G.; Schwille, P. Control of Membrane Binding and Diffusion of Cholesteryl-Modified DNA Origami Nanostructures by DNA Spacers. Langmuir 2018, 34, 1492114931,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b01850
    34. 34
      Nguyen, N.; Shteyn, V.; Melia, T. J. Sensing Membrane Curvature in Macroautophagy. J. Mol. Biol. 2017, 429, 457472,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2017.01.006
    35. 35
      Bhatia, V. K.; Hatzakis, N. S.; Stamou, D. A Unifying Mechanism Accounts for Sensing of Membrane Curvature by Bar Domains, Amphipathic Helices and Membrane-Anchored Proteins. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2010, 21, 381390,  DOI: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2009.12.004
    36. 36
      Douglas, S. M.; Marblestone, A. H.; Teerapittayanon, S.; Vazquez, A.; Church, G. M.; Shih, W. M. Rapid Prototyping of 3d DNA-Origami Shapes with Cadnano. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37, 50015006,  DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkp436
    37. 37
      Bellot, G.; McClintock, M. A.; Chou, J. J.; Shih, W. M. DNA Nanotubes for Nmr Structure Determination of Membrane Proteins. Nat. Protoc. 2013, 8, 755770,  DOI: 10.1038/nprot.2013.037
    38. 38
      Lin, C.; Perrault, S. D.; Kwak, M.; Graf, F.; Shih, W. M. Purification of DNA-Origami Nanostructures by Rate-Zonal Centrifugation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013, 41, e40,  DOI: 10.1093/nar/gks1070
    39. 39
      Stahl, E.; Martin, T. G.; Praetorius, F.; Dietz, H. Facile and Scalable Preparation of Pure and Dense DNA Origami Solutions. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2014, 53, 1273512740,  DOI: 10.1002/anie.201405991
    40. 40
      Lamour, G.; Kirkegaard, J. B.; Li, H.; Knowles, T. P.; Gsponer, J. Easyworm: An Open-Source Software Tool to Determine the Mechanical Properties of Worm-Like Chains. Source Code Biol. Med. 2014, 9, 16,  DOI: 10.1186/1751-0473-9-16
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acsami.9b05401.

    • Designs of DNA-origami curls, DNA sequences, materials and methods, and additional data and models (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

STEP 1:
Click to create an ACS ID

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect