Article | Published:

DNA-imprinted polymer nanoparticles with monodispersity and prescribed DNA-strand patterns

Nature Chemistry volume 10, pages 184192 (2018) | Download Citation


As colloidal self-assembly increasingly approaches the complexity of natural systems, an ongoing challenge is to generate non-centrosymmetric structures. For example, patchy, Janus or living crystallization particles have significantly advanced the area of polymer assembly. It has remained difficult, however, to devise polymer particles that associate in a directional manner, with controlled valency and recognition motifs. Here, we present a method to transfer DNA patterns from a DNA cage to a polymeric nanoparticle encapsulated inside the cage in three dimensions. The resulting DNA-imprinted particles (DIPs), which are ‘moulded’ on the inside of the DNA cage, consist of a monodisperse crosslinked polymer core with a predetermined pattern of different DNA strands covalently ‘printed’ on their exterior, and further assemble with programmability and directionality. The number, orientation and sequence of DNA strands grafted onto the polymeric core can be controlled during the process, and the strands are addressable independently of each other.


Through their reliable, reversible hybridization, nucleic acids can guide the assembly of nanostructures with unparalleled precision1,2,3. The predictability of Watson–Crick DNA base pairing makes it possible to generate anisotropic and monodisperse nanostructures with a great degree of complexity, from two-dimensional patterns to three-dimensional objects such as tubes or polyhedra, but the functionality of these structures remains limited4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11. Synthetic polymers, on the other hand, provide stability and ease of functionalization, yet lack the high degree of programmability, predictability and monodispersity that DNA offers. As such, DNA amphiphilic polymer conjugates have recently received much attention as promising hybrid materials arising from the combination of the programmability and predictability of DNA with the stability and functionality of polymers, and have found use in numerous applications ranging from drug delivery to nanoelectronics12,13,14,15,16.

The self-assembly of DNA amphiphilic polymers mostly gives rise to symmetrical structures such as micelles and vesicles based on microphase separation of the two polymeric blocks17,18,19. Conversely, the creation of discrete and asymmetric nanostructures using DNA–polymer building blocks has not been examined, due to the difficulty in controlling the number, directionality and relative orientation of DNA strands grafted onto the polymeric core. Although polymeric micelles are now being manipulated with greater precision, both by varying their shapes and introducing anisotropy (for example, Janus, patchy particles or particles obtained by living crystallization), there is an ongoing challenge in generating a library of polymer nanoparticles capable of directional bonding20,21,22,23,24,25,26. This has been pursued recently with DNA-functionalized inorganic nanoparticles (NPs), with the development of new strategies to control the valency and bond anisotropy of NPs27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41. Our group, as well as Fan et al., have recently proposed strategies to transfer DNA patterns from three-dimensional DNA nanostructures or DNA origami onto gold NPs (AuNPs)42,43. The number of DNA strands and relative arrangement of DNA patterns in two dimensions can be controlled based on the Au–sulfur interactions. However, to our knowledge, three-dimensional DNA pattern transfer (and, more generally, DNA pattern transfer to polymeric particles) has not been reported so far.

Here, we describe a method to transfer three-dimensional DNA motifs from DNA cube structures, generating DNA–polymer particles using covalent chemistry. The DNA-imprinted particle (DIP) is ‘moulded’ on the inside of a DNA nanostructure and is composed of a monodisperse polymer core and a prescribed number of DNA strands in specific orientations (Fig. 1). As a proof of concept, we have ‘printed’ a specific pattern of six unique strands directly from a DNA cube scaffold to a polymeric core. We show that DIPs are stable under thermal, denaturing conditions and can be precisely controlled in terms of the number of DNA strands and their directionality, while preserving sequence anisotropy. These polymeric particles can self-assemble into well-defined structures using DNA base-pair recognition. Recent studies have demonstrated significantly increased control over polymer self-assembly via microphase separation and crystallization25. DIPs provide additional directional and programmable control and can potentially find numerous biological and materials applications.

Figure 1: Design and working principle of patterning process.
Figure 1

a, An intrascaffold hydrophobic pocket is formed upon introducing eight amphiphiles to the cube. Sebacic acid bis(N-succinimidyl) ester (C10-bi, shown top right) is then used to crosslink the hydrophobic core through amide bond formation. Under denaturing conditions, the printed particle (6x) is purified. b, The hydrophobic portion of the reacting DNA–polymer strand has exactly six hexaethylene (HE) units, with crosslinking amino groups (Am) at the beginning, middle and end of the chain (i). Additional unreactive filler strands that comprise six HE units are used to fill the unused portions of the cube (ii). The hydrophobic segments of the reacting and filler strands are shown in blue and yellow, respectively. In all of the figures, complementary strands are shown in the same colour. c, ‘Clip-by-clip’ assembly approach for Cb. Top: Cb has eight single-stranded regions (four on top and four at the bottom), which can be used to decorate it with DNA or amphiphiles. Bottom: hybridization of a filler strand with the cube. d, Native PAGE (6%) shows the assembly of Cb, which is decorated with eight DNA–amphiphiles (six reacting strands and two non-reacting filler strands) to form the cube-micelle structure. The structure remains intact after crosslinking (lane 3, before crosslinking; lane 4, after crosslinking). Lane 1: Cb. Lane 2: Cb decorated with eight unfunctionalized DNA. Lane 3: Cb decorated with eight amphiphiles before crosslinking. Lane 4: crosslinked cube.

Results and discussion

Design and working principle

Our patterning process relies on a DNA cube scaffold (Cb) as a template (Fig. 1a,c) and DNA–polymer amphiphiles complementary to the sides of this cube. We have previously shown that, when eight amphiphiles are positioned on Cb, they undergo an intrascaffold ‘handshake’ to create an internal hydrophobic pocket44,45,46. We hypothesized that, if the polymer portions on the inside of the cube were covalently crosslinked, this would produce polymeric particles that are covalently conjugated to the DNA strands hybridized to the cube. This DNA-imprinted particle (DIP) can then be released from the cubic scaffold by denaturation. Its core is defined by the number of strands and the nature and length of the polymer, which are precisely controlled (see Fig. 2 and Supplementary Section XXII), and it is functionalized with DNA strands of different sequences, presenting on its exterior in well-defined numbers and directions.

The cube scaffold (Cb) was prepared using a ‘clip-by-clip’ approach as previously reported (Fig. 1c)45,46. This scaffold was chosen because it presents several attractive features: (1) it has up to eight different binding regions (four on top and four on the bottom) and (2) it is possible to generate DIPs with different patterns (for example, number of DNA strands, sequences and directionality) using only one scaffold.

Another component required in the process comprises DNA amphiphilic polymers. These were prepared using automated solid-phase phosphoramidite synthesis18. We functionalized DNA strands with hydrophobic alkyl chains and reactive amine moieties in precise numbers and positions. The units consist of a hexa-ethylene (HE) segment and an amino group (Am), both of which feature an end phosphate group through which they can connect to each other as well as to the DNA strand (Fig. 1b). The resulting DNA–polymer amphiphile structure was optimized (by changing the numbers and positions of HE chains and Am units) to maximize the yield of the desired crosslinked product (Supplementary Section IV). The optimal strands contain six HE units and three Am groups in the sequence 5′-Am-(HE)3-Am-(HE)3-Am-DNA-3′ (that is, one at the end, one in the middle of the hydrophobic part and one between the DNA and polymeric portions) and are called ‘reacting strands’ (Fig. 1b). Recently, we showed that the hydrophobic cores of DNA micelles can act as nanoreactors that facilitate the conjugation of DNA with hydrophobic organic molecules in aqueous buffer47. We predicted that the hydrophobic core inside Cb could serve as a platform to carry out organic reactions that crosslink this core. The result is a polymeric nanoparticle that is covalently bonded to different DNA strands. To make a hexavalent particle inside the cube, six reacting strands (with Am groups) are needed, leaving two single-stranded regions on the scaffold. To form a hydrophobic environment within the cube, all eight binding sites on Cb need to be filled with amphiphiles. Therefore, two additional amphiphiles, which contain only six HE units but without any functional groups, called ‘filler strands’, are also introduced (Fig. 1b). The six DNA reacting strands (with Am groups) and two non-reacting filler strands (without Am groups) on Cb are expected to fold in, creating a hydrophobic pocket in the cube with multiple Am groups46. A crosslinking reagent (sebacic acid bis(N-succinimidyl) ester (C10-bi)) is then added to covalently ‘lock’ the core via amide bond formation at room temperature (Fig. 1a).

Figure 1d shows a native PAGE as the outcome of this process: (1) quantitative assembly of Cb decorated with eight amphiphiles (lane 3); (2) the structure remains intact after the crosslinking reaction (lane 4); and (3) no higher-order structures are formed, demonstrating that the crosslinking reactions occur only inside one cube. Interestingly, we observed previously that when eight amphiphiles with six HE units (HE6-DNA) are placed on the cube scaffold, its electrophoretic mobility is higher than that of a cube with eight unfunctionalized complementary DNA strands (Fig. 1d, lanes 2 and 3). This is most probably due to efficient folding of the hydrophobic chains upon introduction of the HE units on the decorating strands, which ultimately leads to a more compact structure (Fig. 4b)46. Finally, after the crosslinking process, the crude mixture was run on a denaturing PAGE to separate the desired hexavalent product (6x) from side products (divalent (2x), trivalent (3x), tetravalent (4x) and pentavalent (5x)) (Fig. 2a). Although 2x5x are expected to be composed of different isomers, 6x should be a single product. The unreacted filler strands dissociate from the particle, leaving behind the prescribed number of DNA arms and HE core (Figs 2a and  5b). The core of 6x is equivalent to a polyethylene chain with exactly 216 repeat units, -(CH2-CH2)-216; thus, it is monodisperse.

Figure 2: Characterization of ‘printed’ particle.
Figure 2

a, Denaturing PAGE (12%) to separate the desired hexavalent product (6x) from other side products (2x, 3x, 4x and 5x). b, Schematic representation of the addressibility of the 6x printed particle. Bottom left: AFM image (in air) of 6x under Mg2+-free conditions. 6x still maintained its integrity in the salt-free environment, suggesting that 6x was crosslinked. Adding complementary strands (comp) to strands 1–6 of 6x in a stepwise fashion resulted in lower mobility shifts on 6% native PAGE. Right: 6% native PAGE showing characterization of the final product—Lane 1: 6x (control); Lane 2: 6x + comp 1; Lane 3: 6x + comp 1–2; Lane 4: 6x + comp 1–3; Lane 5: 6x + comp 1–4; Lane 6: 6x + comp 1–5; Lane 7: 6x + comp 1–6.

Characterization of the formation of 6x

The denaturing PAGE in Fig. 2a shows that, after crosslinking, a mixture of products with different numbers of DNA strands (from divalent to hexavalent) is formed. The yield of the formation of 6x is 30% based on band intensity analysis, corresponding to at least 88% efficiency in individual reactions between amino groups and NHS moieties (Supplementary Section IX; 40% yield for a DIP with four DNA strands, see Fig. 5b), and 6x can be recovered at up to 92% by electroelution after gel extraction. With higher-yielding coupling reactions, we expect this efficiency to increase further. In addition, the formation of the crosslinked 6x product was confirmed by atomic force microscopy (AFM) imaging in air and dynamic light scattering (DLS). Our previous studies showed that HE6-DNA amphiphiles can only self-assemble into spherical micelles in the presence of Mg2+, which compensates for the electrostatic repulsion between phosphate groups18. In contrast, 6x in water (without Mg2+) could still maintain its integrity with a diameter of 22.2 ± 3.8 nm (measured by AFM; Fig. 2b) and 30.6 ± 5.7 nm (measured by DLS; Supplementary Section XVI), which strongly supports that 6x is covalently crosslinked. The difference in size of 6x obtained by AFM and DLS could be due to repulsion between phosphate backbones in a salt-free environment. Despite its high polyethylene content, the particle appears compact in the AFM images, most probably due to its phospholipid-like folding/compaction and from its collapse on the mica surface. Moreover, the ‘printed’ particle was still intact after incubation at 95 °C for 2 h, as analysed by denaturing PAGE (Supplementary Fig. 3).

To further characterize the number and addressability of the DNA strands transferred onto the crosslinked micelle, six fully complementary strands (comp 1–6), which hybridize with each of the six DNA unique strands, were sequentially added to the printed particles. A sequential decrease in electrophoretic mobility of the structures indicated the successful hybridization of individual comp 1–6 to 6x (Fig. 2b, lanes 1–7). In addition, as the complementary strands were added, the width of the band narrowed, probably because the printed particle's polymeric core interacts less with the gel matrix. Furthermore, the approach can be expanded to different cage geometries (for example, trigonal prism or pentagonal prism), which tunes the degree of polymerization of the polymer core, demonstrating its versatility (-(CH2-CH2)-n where, for example, n = 180, 216 or 252, Supplementary Section XXII). To our knowledge, this is the first example of a monodisperse DNA–polymeric particle featuring a specific number of unique and addressable DNA sequences.

Rebinding 6x to ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ scaffolds

Following the formation of 6x, we sought to determine if the relative orientations of DNA strands were maintained after our patterning process. To do this, we carried out a series of rebinding experiments of crosslinked 6x to the cube scaffold42.

First, the correct cube scaffold (Cb), with sequences and geometry matching 6x, was prepared separately, then incubated with 6x (in excess) at room temperature for 16 h. Two HE6-DNA strands complementary to the remaining cube sides were also added (filler strands) to fill all eight binding regions on the Cb and trigger the intrascaffold handshake (step 1, Fig. 3a). The 6% native PAGE in Fig. 3d shows a single band for the resulting rebinding product (RP) (lane 2), indicating high rebinding efficiency. Moreover, RP has the same mobility as a control crosslinked cube structure (Cb-A), implying that it has the same compaction degree and a similar structure (see Supplementary Fig. 6 for additional verification). This suggests that the printed particle has its six DNA strands bound to their correct positions on the cube.

Figure 3: Rebinding experiment of ‘printed’ particle 6x to Cb.
Figure 3

The experiment consists of two steps. In the first step, 6x is rebound to Cb by incubating at room temperature over 16 h to form the rebinding product (RP). In the second step, 6x is removed from Cb by adding fully complementary strands (strand displacement) to the RP. a, Cb was incubated with 6x (in excess) and two non-reacting filler strands to fill up all eight binding sites on Cb (step 1). b,c, Schematic representation of the removal of 6x from Cb using strands that are fully complementary to 6x (step 2). Overall process using the strand displacement approach (b) and details of the step-wise hybridization of each reacting strand with its complementary strand (c). d, 6% native PAGE analysis of the rebinding experiment (step 1). Lane 1: Cb; Lane 2: RP; Lane 3: Cb-A (cube after crosslinking); Lane 4: Cb/DNA (cube with eight unfunctionalized DNAs). RP has the same mobility shift as a control crosslinked cube, indicating that 6x bound completely to Cb. e, After removal of 6x from Cb, Cb was reformed along with the fully double-stranded micelle, 6x-6, and non-reacting filler strands were hybridized to their complements (comp–temp). 6% native PAGE analysis of the removal experiment (step 2)—Lane 1: Cb; Lane 2: RP; Lane 3: Cb with amphiphiles after crosslinking (control); Lane 4: RP + non-reacting filler strand complements (comp–temp), which remove the two filler strands; Lanes 5–10: RP + comp–temp + sequential addition of the complementary strands to 6x (outlined in c).

As the amphiphiles have a 5T spacer and are hybridized to only 14 bases of the 20-base edges on the DNA cube, a strand displacement strategy can be used. DNA strands with fully complementary sequences to the strands of 6x were added to the RP sequentially. This resulted in the liberation of 6x hybridized with six complementary strands (6x-6) from Cb (Fig. 3c). Indeed, only after the addition of all six complementary strands (comp 1-6) to RP did we observe full dissociation of the particle from the cube scaffold (Fig. 3e, lane 10). This unambiguously confirmed that 6x had rebound completely to each of its six binding regions on Cb. Interestingly, we observed that 6x could fully recognize the cube scaffold, even after being heated at higher temperature (Supplementary Figs 3 and 4). This implies that the DNA pattern of 6x is still maintained at higher temperature.

To further verify the asymmetric nature of our ‘printed’ particle (6x), we designed a rebinding experiment in which 6x was incubated with an ‘incorrect’ scaffold. This scaffold (Cb-wrong) contains six binding regions complementary to 6x, but they are presented in a spatial arrangement different from that of the correct template cube (Cb), so only three contiguous binding sites on Cb-wrong can be accessed by 6x. Interestingly, 6x could not bind completely to the wrong scaffold due to its different spatial arrangement; instead, two 6x particles partially bound to the incorrect cube, as characterized by non-denaturing PAGE, DLS and several control experiments (Fig. 4a and Supplementary Sections XIV–XVI).

Figure 4: Rebinding experiment to the wrong scaffold and molecular simulation.
Figure 4

a, Top: Schematic representation of the rebinding experiment of 6x to the wrong cube scaffold (Cb-wrong). Bottom: Due to the difference in configuration, 6x could not bind completely to Cb-wrong (lane 2); instead, two printed particles were partially bound to the wrong scaffold, as shown by 6% native PAGE (for details see Supplementary Sections XIV–XVI). b, Molecular simulation of cube–DNA amphiphiles structure. Initial and final snapshots at t = 20 ns of two molecular models showing the intramolecular hydrophobic ‘handshake’: one with previously folded hydrophobic chains (‘pre-folded’, left) and the second (right) with unfolded hydrophobic chains, which better reflects the experimental conditions (‘extended’). Within 20 ns, fast-folding and self-assembly of HE chains occurred in the latter case but not in the former, in accordance with our earlier discussion about scaffold compaction. DNA strands are in orange, and non-reacting and reacting hydrophobic units are in green.

Molecular mechanism of polymer self-assembly and crosslinking inside the DNA cube

To gain insight at the molecular level, we performed computer modelling with molecular dynamics simulations of our cube scaffold (Cb) decorated with amphiphiles. Our simulations started from two distinct conformations: the Cb scaffold with a prefolded hydrophobic portion (control), and the scaffold with an extended hydrophobic portion of amphiphiles. The latter may better represent the annealing conditions of the experiment. Within 20 ns, we observed simultaneous fast folding and self-assembly of the HE chains in the simulations, starting from the extended hydrophobic portion, but relatively slow self-assembly in the simulations starting from the prefolded hydrophobic portion (Fig. 4b). With the help of the cube, it is likely that the extended HE chains can easily form a hydrophobic core inside the cube, which is further stabilized by rearrangements of the charged and hydrophobic groups during polymer folding (Supplementary Section XXI and Supplementary Movie). To our surprise, this phenomenon is quite different from many natural peptides, in which the self-assembly occurs faster than folding48. We also showed, by significantly reducing the diffusion, that the cube facilitates polymer self-assembly as well as crosslinking. Interestingly, during the self-assembly process, we observed distortion in the length of the DNA cubic edges, which further supports our discussion earlier about compaction of the cube (Figs 1 and  4b and Supplementary Fig. 20). Along with the self-assembly process, there is an increasing probability that the Am groups from hydrophobic portions have a separation within 15 Å, a distance that allows crosslinking. Toward the last 1 ns of the simulations starting from the extended HE chains, almost every Am group on the reacting strands has another in the distance range that is ready for crosslinking (Supplementary Fig. 21).

Controlling the valency

We were interested in controlling the number of DNA strands transferred onto the polymeric core. Although this has been examined previously with gold nanoparticles29, it is still a great challenge to precisely control the DNA valency and sequences grafted onto a polymeric core. The ability to control the number and sequences of DNA strands on a nanostructured object is of great importance (for example, in drug delivery, in controlling the nature and number of cell-targeting ligands on a nanomaterial)29. By deliberately hybridizing a predefined number of reacting strands (for example, x strands where x ≤ 8) and 8 − x non-reacting filler strands (HE6-DNA) on the cube scaffold, after crosslinking using C10-bi, an x-valent product was formed and purified (Fig. 5a). Our cube scaffold has the potential to be recovered and reused for ‘printing’ to increase the scalability of this approach. We were particularly interested in making printed patterns with two to six unique DNA arms because the synthesis of these structures is not trivial. The divalent (2x), trivalent (3x), tetravalent (4x) and pentavalent (5x) products were formed with 60, 51, 40 and 35% yields, respectively (Fig. 5b; see Supplementary Section XVII for gel characterization and Supplementary Section XXIII for octavalent particle (8x) formation).

Figure 5: Controlled valency of DNA-imprinted particles.
Figure 5

a, Overall process of controlling the number of DNA strands transferred from the DNA cube scaffold. By decorating the scaffold with a predefined number of reacting and filler strands, polymeric particles with desired valency can be formed. b, Denaturation of the cube after crosslinking results in non-reacting filler strands, cube clip strands and a mixture of printed products with different valencies. Indeed, the unreacted filler strands dissociate from the particle (outlined in blue in b), leaving behind the prescribed number of DNA arms and the HE core. 12% denaturing PAGE analysis—Lane 1: non-reacting filler strand without functional groups (HE6 amphiphile) (control); Lane 2: reacting strand with three Am groups (control); Lanes 3–6: denatured crosslinked cubes, which produced divalent (2x, lane 3), trivalent (3x, lane 4), tetravalent (4x, lane 5) and pentavalent (5x, lane 6) products.

Self-assembly of printed particles 6x into higher-order discrete structures

An important challenge is to generate complex and well-defined polymeric structures by self-assembly49,50. We were thus motivated to explore the possibility of using them as new building blocks in assembling nanostructures based on polymeric particles. We set out to create a dimer and a trimer from the printed particle 6x as a proof of concept. Connector 1, which is a 42-base-pair DNA duplex with 14-base sticky ends at both ends, was introduced to bring together two DIPs with a designed configuration, separated by 70 bases, leading to the formation of dimer product (Fig. 6a). To make DIP trimers, we added more DIP and connector 2 (same design as connector 1). This allowed the positioning of two other DIPs in adjacent relative positions on the central particle (see Fig. 6a,c-1 for positioning). Native PAGE revealed successful assembly, as demonstrated by the decrease in mobility shifts (Supplementary Fig. 15). Dimer and trimer assembled structures were further characterized by AFM (in air) in two separate experiments with yields of 68% (N = 196) and 45% (N = 345), respectively (Fig. 6a and Supplementary Section XVIII). The difference in yield when compared to PAGE is probably a result of AFM sample preparation. Moreover, the distance between two printed particles was measured to be 22.0 ± 2.5 nm (N = 100), which is in accordance with the expected length of a 70-DNA-base-pair duplex connecting the particles (23.8 nm).

Figure 6: Self-assembly of ‘printed’ particle 6x into dimers and trimers.
Figure 6

a, Schematic representation of the self-assembly of DIPs into dimer and trimer (i). Angle analysis of DIP trimers (ii). AFM images under dry condition in two separate experiments, showing the structure of dimer and trimer DIPs with yields of 68% (iii) and 45% (iv). The interparticle distance was measured to be 22.0 ± 2.5 nm (N = 100) and can be finely tuned. The measured angle of trimer DIPs is 101 ± 25° (N = 122). The bottom images in iii and iv show zoomed-in views of some but not all of the DIPs marked up in the main AFM image (top). b, Self-assembly of DIP trimers with two particles in ‘opposite’ positions (i). Angle analysis (ii) and AFM images (iii) of those DIP trimers. The measured angle of the trimer with ‘opposite’ DIPs (c) is 146 ± 22° (N = 102). The right images in iii show zoomed-in views of some but not all of the DIPs marked up in the main AFM image (left). c, Schematic representation of two different types of self-assembled DIP trimer: ‘adjacent’ and ‘opposite’.

The asymmetric nature of the 6x was further examined using AFM for the construction of trimer structures. The central particle allows us to place two other particles in positions ‘opposite’ to one another (by using two DNA arms transferred from two opposite cube edges), resulting in wider observed angles of the trimers (Fig. 6b and Supplementary Fig. 16). We expect that if the relative placement is maintained, we should observe a wider angle in type B trimer compared to type A trimer (Fig. 6c). Indeed, by analysing angular distributions in each type of trimer structure, we observed that the trimers with configuration B have wider angles than trimers with configuration A (Fig. 6a,b).

Finally, self-assembled tetramer structures based on DIPs were prepared (yield of 40%; N = 183) with three particles connected to the central particle, by adding more DIP and connector 3. Unambiguously, we observed a wider angle between particles 1 and 3 (two DNA arms are originally from opposite edges of the cube) than between particles 1 and 2 or between particles 2 and 3 (two DNA arms are originally from adjacent edges of the cube) in the tetramer (Fig. 7 and Supplementary Section XX). Moreover, the angle between particles 1 and 2 is statistically similar to the angle between particles 2 and 3, reflecting the adjacent positions of the DNA strands on the printed particles. This further confirms retention of the relative geometric patterns after being transferred from the cube scaffold. For our statistical analysis, we only counted tetramer species presenting all three arms on the mica surface. The yield of 40% tetramer may reflect the manner in which the structures land on the mica surface, as their arms can be turned towards the surface and may thus appear to have fewer arms (for example, they may look like trimers, although they are tetramers).

Figure 7: Self-assembly of ‘printed’ particle 6x into tetramers.
Figure 7

a, Schematic representation of the self-assembly of DIP tetramers with three particles connected to a central one. b, AFM images of the tetramers. Additional AFM images and statistical analysis are provided in Supplementary Sections XVIII–XX.


We have demonstrated the first general method to transfer DNA patterns in three dimensions, directly from a DNA cubic scaffold to well-defined polymeric particles. We have shown that our printed particle (6x) has exactly six unique DNA strands grafted on its HE core and that its valency can be controlled exactly. The polymer nanoparticle is ‘moulded’ inside the cage, with a precise and tunable number of repeat units. More importantly, the hexavalent printed particles preserve the orientation and sequence anisotropy obtained from the DNA cubic scaffold, which was demonstrated using scaffold rebinding as well as hierarchical assembly experiments. We anticipate that this method will allow the self-assembly of colloidal particles in which the printed particles can serve as precisely-defined ‘six-arm junctions’ to create highly complex nanostructures in a predictable manner. Furthermore, this method can be used in targeted delivery and diagnostics in the future due to the addressability and monodispersity of the resulting particles. More specifically, our ‘printed’ particle could potentially be functionalized with targeting moieties with chosen three-dimensional orientations, which is of great importance in polyvalent receptor recognition51. Applications such as drug delivery vehicles, asymmetrically substituted nanomaterials to control cellular processes, barcoded diagnostics or building blocks for non-centrosymmetric polymer patterning are anticipated. These directions of research as well as scaling up of the printed product (for example, by immobilizing the scaffold on bead) will be our main focus in the future.


Preparation of hexavalent printed particle (6x)

Four clip strands (1AB, 2CD, 3AE, 4IH; for sequences see Supplementary Sections I–IV) and DNA–polymer conjugates (six reacting strands at B, C, D, E, I and H sides and two non-reacting strands at A sides) in the appropriate ratio (1 equivalent each with respect to binding site) were mixed in a solution of 1× TAMg to obtain a final concentration of 500 nM. The 1× TAMg buffer was composed of 45 mM Tris and 12.5 mM MgCl2.6H2O, with pH adjusted to 8.0 using glacial acetic acid. The sample was mixed and annealed from 95 to 4 °C over 4 h to form the cage-micelle structure. Then, 10 mM of sebacic acid bis(N-hydroxysuccinimide) (C10-bi) dissolved in THF was added to the cage-micelle solution. The reaction mixture was stirred at room temperature for 16 h before purification by 12% denaturing gel (500 V, 2 h). The desired band was assigned as in Fig. 2a, excised carefully, and recovered by electroelution in 0.5× TAE buffer (20 mM Tris, 10 mM acetate and 0.5 mM EDTA).

Data availability

The data collected and reported in this study, including all LC-MS, PAGE, DLS, AFM and modelling, are available upon request from the correspondence author (including data presented in the main text and in the Supplementary Information).

Additional information

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.


  1. 1.

    DNA in a material world. Nature 421, 427–431 (2003).

  2. 2.

    , & Assembling materials with DNA as the guide. Science 321, 1795–1799 (2008).

  3. 3.

    DNA engineering and its application to nanotechnology. Trends Biotechnol. 17, 437–443 (1999).

  4. 4.

    Folding DNA to create nanoscale shapes and patterns. Nature 440, 297–302 (2006).

  5. 5.

    & Modular access to structurally switchable 3D discrete DNA assemblies. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 129, 13376–13377 (2007).

  6. 6.

    et al. Hierarchical self-assembly of DNA into symmetric supramolecular polyhedra. Nature 452, 198–201 (2008).

  7. 7.

    , , & Three-dimensional structures self-assembled from DNA bricks. Science 338, 1177–1183 (2012).

  8. 8.

    , , & Design and self-assembly of two-dimensional DNA crystals. Nature 394, 539–544 (1998).

  9. 9.

    et al. DNA rendering of polyhedral meshes at the nanoscale. Nature 523, 441–444 (2015).

  10. 10.

    et al. Self-assembly of DNA into nanoscale three-dimensional shapes. Nature 459, 414–418 (2009).

  11. 11.

    et al. Scaffolded DNA origami of a DNA tetrahedron molecular container. Nano Lett. 9, 2445–2447 (2009).

  12. 12.

    & Nucleic acid/organic polymer hybrid materials: synthesis, superstructures, and applications. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 49, 8574–8587 (2010).

  13. 13.

    & DNA meets synthetic polymers—highly versatile hybrid materials. Org. Biomol. Chem. 5, 1311–1320 (2007).

  14. 14.

    , , & Direct synthesis of an oligonucleotide–poly(phenylene ethynylene) conjugate with a precise one-to-one molecular ratio. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 117, 2628–2632 (2005).

  15. 15.

    & Novel polymer−DNA hybrid polymeric micelles composed of hydrophobic poly(D,L-lactic-co-glycolic acid) and hydrophilic oligonucleotides. Bioconj. Chem. 12, 917–923 (2001).

  16. 16.

    et al. Light-triggered, self-immolative nucleic acid–drug nanostructures. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 137, 6112–6115 (2015).

  17. 17.

    & Nucleic acid amphiphiles: synthesis and self-assembled nanostructures. Chem. Soc. Rev. 40, 5745–5755 (2011).

  18. 18.

    , , & An efficient and modular route to sequence-defined polymers appended to DNA. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 53, 4567–4571 (2014).

  19. 19.

    et al. Self-assembly of DNA–oligo(p-phenylene-ethynylene) hybrid amphiphiles into surface-engineered vesicles with enhanced emission. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 53, 8352–8357 (2014).

  20. 20.

    et al. Janus particle synthesis and assembly. Adv. Mater. 22, 1060–1071 (2010).

  21. 21.

    & Polymeric Janus particles. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 48, 8412–8421 (2009).

  22. 22.

    , & Biphasic Janus particles with nanoscale anisotropy. Nat. Mater. 4, 759–763 (2005).

  23. 23.

    & Sequence control in polymer synthesis. Chem. Soc. Rev. 38, 3383–3390 (2009).

  24. 24.

    , , & Sequence-controlled polymers. Science 341, 1238149 (2013).

  25. 25.

    et al. Uniform patchy and hollow rectangular platelet micelles from crystallizable polymer blends. Science 352, 697–701 (2016).

  26. 26.

    & Janus particles: synthesis, self-assembly, physical properties, and applications. Chem. Rev. 113, 5194–5261 (2013).

  27. 27.

    , & Controlling the number and positions of oligonucleotides on gold nanoparticle surfaces. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131, 7518–7519 (2009).

  28. 28.

    , & DNA-linked nanoparticle building blocks for programmable matter. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 50, 9185–9190 (2011).

  29. 29.

    , , , & Electrophoretic isolation of discrete Au nanocrystal/DNA conjugates. Nano Lett. 1, 32–35 (2001).

  30. 30.

    , , & Encapsulation of gold nanoparticles in a DNA origami cage. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 50, 2041–2044 (2011).

  31. 31.

    , , , & Self-assembly of molecule-like nanoparticle clusters directed by DNA nanocages. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 137, 4320–4323 (2015).

  32. 32.

    et al. Colloids with valence and specific directional bonding. Nature 491, 51–55 (2012).

  33. 33.

    , , , & Asymmetric functionalization of gold nanoparticles with oligonucleotides. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 128, 9286–9287 (2006).

  34. 34.

    et al. Improving the yield of mono-DNA-functionalized gold nanoparticles through dual steric hindrance. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 133, 15284–15287 (2011).

  35. 35.

    et al. Designed diblock oligonucleotide for the synthesis of spatially isolated and highly hybridizable functionalization of DNA–gold nanoparticle nanoconjugates. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134, 11876–11879 (2012).

  36. 36.

    , , & Building plasmonic nanostructures with DNA. Nat. Nanotech. 6, 268–276 (2011).

  37. 37.

    , , , & Stepwise surface encoding for high-throughput assembly of nanoclusters. Nat. Mater. 8, 388–391 (2009).

  38. 38.

    , , & Facile and efficient preparation of anisotropic DNA-functionalized gold nanoparticles and their regioselective assembly. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135, 17675–17678 (2013).

  39. 39.

    et al. Prescribed nanoparticle cluster architectures and low-dimensional arrays built using octahedral DNA origami frames. Nat. Nanotech. 10, 637–644 (2015).

  40. 40.

    , , & Ordering gold nanoparticles with DNA origami nanoflowers. ACS Nano 10, 7303–7306 (2016).

  41. 41.

    , , , & Self-organized architectures from assorted DNA-framed nanoparticles. Nat. Chem. 8, 867–873 (2016).

  42. 42.

    , , , & Transfer of molecular recognition information from DNA nanostructures to gold nanoparticles. Nat. Chem. 8, 162–170 (2016).

  43. 43.

    et al. Transfer of two-dimensional oligonucleotide patterns onto stereocontrolled plasmonic nanostructures through DNA-origami-based nanoimprinting lithography. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 55, 8036–8040 (2016).

  44. 44.

    , , , & Site-specific positioning of dendritic alkyl chains on DNA cages enables their geometry-dependent self-assembly. Nat. Chem. 5, 868–875 (2013).

  45. 45.

    , , , & Precision polymers and 3D DNA nanostructures: emergent assemblies from new parameter space. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 136, 15767–15774 (2014).

  46. 46.

    , , & Synergy of two assembly languages in DNA nanostructures: self-assembly of sequence-defined polymers on DNA cages. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 138, 4416–4425 (2016).

  47. 47.

    , , & DNA micelles as nanoreactors: efficient DNA functionalization with hydrophobic organic molecules. Chem. Commun. 52, 10914–10917 (2016).

  48. 48.

    et al. Melittin aggregation in aqueous solutions: insight from molecular dynamics simulations. J. Phys. Chem. B 119, 10390–10398 (2015).

  49. 49.

    , , & Nucleic acid-modified nanostructures as programmable atom equivalents: forging a new ‘table of elements’. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 52, 5688–5698 (2013).

  50. 50.

    , & Programmable materials and the nature of the DNA bond. Science 347, 1260901 (2015).

  51. 51.

    , , & Molecular diagnostic and drug delivery agents based on aptamer-nanomaterial conjugates. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 62, 592–605 (2010).

Download references


The authors acknowledge the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, the Centre for Self-Assembled Chemical Structures (CSACS), the Qatar Research Foundation (project no. NPRP 5-1505-1-250) and the Canada Research Chairs Program for financial support. H.F.S. is a Cottrell Scholar of the Research Corporation.

Author information


  1. Department of Chemistry and Center for Self-Assembled Chemical Structures, McGill University, 801 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Quebec H3A 0B8, Canada

    • Tuan Trinh
    • , Violeta Toader
    •  & Hanadi F. Sleiman
  2. Department of Chemistry, The University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA

    • Chenyi Liao
    •  & Jianing Li
  3. Department of Chemistry, Texas A&M University at Qatar, P.O. Box 23874, Doha, Qatar

    • Maciej Barłóg
    •  & Hassan S. Bazzi


  1. Search for Tuan Trinh in:

  2. Search for Chenyi Liao in:

  3. Search for Violeta Toader in:

  4. Search for Maciej Barłóg in:

  5. Search for Hassan S. Bazzi in:

  6. Search for Jianing Li in:

  7. Search for Hanadi F. Sleiman in:


H.F.S. and T.T. designed the project. T.T. mainly contributed to the production of experimental results. C.L. and J.L. performed computer modelling molecular dynamics simulations of the cube/DNA-polymer. M.B., H.S.B. and V.T. synthesized the hydrophobic unit and its phosphoramidite derivative. All authors agreed to all the content of the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hanadi F. Sleiman.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary information

    Supplementary information


  1. 1.

    Supplementary information

    Supplementary Movie 1

About this article

Publication history





Further reading