Advancing Biophysics Using DNA Origami

Literature Cited

1. 1. 

   Aghebat Rafat A, Sagredo S, Thalhammer M, Simmel FC 2020. Barcoded DNA origami structures for multiplexed optimization and enrichment of DNA-based protein-binding cavities. Nat. Chem. 12:852–59
   [Google Scholar]
2. 2. 

   Aksel T, Yu Z, Cheng Y, Douglas SM. 2021. Molecular goniometers for single-particle cryo-electron microscopy of DNA-binding proteins. Nat. Biotechnol. 39:378–86
   [Google Scholar]
3. 3. 

   Bai X, Martin TG, Scheres SHW, Dietz H 2012. Cryo-EM structure of a 3D DNA-origami object. PNAS 109:20012–17
   [Google Scholar]
4. 4. 

   Bastings MMC, Anastassacos FM, Ponnuswamy N, Leifer FG, Cuneo G et al. 2018. Modulation of the cellular uptake of DNA origami through control over mass and shape. Nano Lett 18:3557–64
   [Google Scholar]
5. 5. 

   Bednar J, Furrer P, Katritch V, Stasiak AZ, Dubochet J, Stasiak A. 1995. Determination of DNA persistence length by cryo-electron microscopy: separation of the static and dynamic contributions to the apparent persistence length of DNA. J. Mol. Biol. 254:579–94
   [Google Scholar]
6. 6. 

   Bell NAW, Engst CR, Ablay M, Divitini G, Ducati C et al. 2012. DNA origami nanopores. Nano Lett 12:512–17
   [Google Scholar]
7. 7. 

   Bellot G, McClintock MA, Chou JJ, Shih WM. 2013. DNA nanotubes for NMR structure determination of membrane proteins. Nat. Protoc. 8:755–70
   [Google Scholar]
8. 8. 

   Berardi MJ, Shih WM, Harrison SC, Chou JJ. 2011. Mitochondrial uncoupling protein 2 structure determined by NMR molecular fragment searching. Nature 476:109–13
   [Google Scholar]
9. 9. 

   Bian X, Zhang Z, Xiong Q, De Camilli P, Lin C 2019. A programmable DNA-origami platform for studying lipid transfer between bilayers. Nat. Chem. Biol. 15:830–37
   [Google Scholar]
10. 10. 

    Boutureira O, Bernardes GJL. 2015. Advances in chemical protein modification. Chem. Rev. 115:2174–95
    [Google Scholar]
11. 11. 

    Bustamante C, Marko JF, Siggia ED, Smith S. 1994. Entropic elasticity of lambda-phage DNA. Science 265:1599–600
    [Google Scholar]
12. 12. 

    Czogalla A, Kauert DJ, Franquelim HG, Uzunova V, Zhang Y et al. 2015. Amphipathic DNA origami nanoparticles to scaffold and deform lipid membrane vesicles. Angew. Chem. 54:6501–5
    [Google Scholar]
13. 13. 

    Dekker C. 2007. Solid-state nanopores. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2:209–15
    [Google Scholar]
14. 14. 

    Dietz H, Berkemeier F, Bertz M, Rief M 2006. Anisotropic deformation response of single protein molecules. PNAS 103:12724–28
    [Google Scholar]
15. 15. 

    Dietz H, Douglas SM, Shih WM. 2009. Folding DNA into twisted and curved nanoscale shapes. Science 325:725–30
    [Google Scholar]
16. 16. 

    Dietz H, Rief M 2006. Protein structure by mechanical triangulation. PNAS 103:1244–47
    [Google Scholar]
17. 17. 

    Dong Y, Chen S, Zhang S, Sodroski J, Yang Z et al. 2018. Folding DNA into a lipid-conjugated nanobarrel for controlled reconstitution of membrane proteins. Angew. Chem. 57:2072–76
    [Google Scholar]
18. 18. 

    Douglas SM, Bachelet I, Church GM. 2012. A logic-gated nanorobot for targeted transport of molecular payloads. Science 335:831–34
    [Google Scholar]
19. 19. 

    Douglas SM, Chou JJ, Shih WM 2007. DNA-nanotube-induced alignment of membrane proteins for NMR structure determination. PNAS 104:6644–48
    [Google Scholar]
20. 20. 

    Dutta PK, Zhang Y, Blanchard AT, Ge C, Rushdi M et al. 2018. Programmable multivalent DNA-origami tension probes for reporting cellular traction forces. Nano Lett 18:4803–11
    [Google Scholar]
21. 21. 

    Endo M, Katsuda Y, Hidaka K, Sugiyama H. 2010. A versatile DNA nanochip for direct analysis of DNA base-excision repair. Angew. Chem. 49:9412–16
    [Google Scholar]
22. 22. 

    Engelhardt FAS, Praetorius F, Wachauf CH, Brüggenthies G, Kohler F et al. 2019. Custom-size, functional, and durable DNA origami with design-specific scaffolds. ACS Nano 13:5015–27
    [Google Scholar]
23. 23. 

    Evans E, Ritchie K 1997. Dynamic strength of molecular adhesion bonds. Biophys. J. 72:1541–55
    [Google Scholar]
24. 24. 

    Florin EL, Moy VT, Gaub HE. 1994. Adhesion forces between individual ligand-receptor pairs. Science 264:415–17
    [Google Scholar]
25. 25. 

    Franquelim HG, Dietz H, Schwille P. 2021. Reversible membrane deformations by straight DNA origami filaments. Soft Matter 17:276–87
    [Google Scholar]
26. 26. 

    Franquelim HG, Khmelinskaia A, Sobczak J-P, Dietz H, Schwille P. 2018. Membrane sculpting by curved DNA origami scaffolds. Nat. Commun. 9:811
    [Google Scholar]
27. 27. 

    Fu J, Liu M, Liu Y, Woodbury NW, Yan H. 2012. Interenzyme substrate diffusion for an enzyme cascade organized on spatially addressable DNA nanostructures. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134:5516–19
    [Google Scholar]
28. 28. 

    Funke JJ, Dietz H. 2016. Placing molecules with Bohr radius resolution using DNA origami. Nat. Nanotechnol. 11:47–52
    [Google Scholar]
29. 29. 

    Funke JJ, Ketterer P, Lieleg C, Korber P, Dietz H. 2016. Exploring nucleosome unwrapping using DNA origami. Nano Lett 16:7891–98
    [Google Scholar]
30. 30. 

    Funke JJ, Ketterer P, Lieleg C, Schunter S, Korber P, Dietz H. 2016. Uncovering the forces between nucleosomes using DNA origami. Sci. Adv. 2:e1600974
    [Google Scholar]
31. 31. 

    Gautier A, Juillerat A, Heinis C, Reis Corrêa I Jr., Kindermann M et al. 2008. An engineered protein tag for multiprotein labeling in living cells. Chem. Biol. 15:128–36
    [Google Scholar]
32. 32. 

    Gerling T, Kube M, Kick B, Dietz H. 2018. Sequence-programmable covalent bonding of designed DNA assemblies. Sci. Adv. 4:eaau1157
    [Google Scholar]
33. 33. 

    Good MC, Zalatan JG, Lim WA. 2011. Scaffold proteins: hubs for controlling the flow of cellular information. Science 332:680–86
    [Google Scholar]
34. 34. 

    Göpfrich K, Li C-Y, Ricci M, Bhamidimarri SP, Yoo J et al. 2016. Large-conductance transmembrane porin made from DNA origami. ACS Nano 10:8207–14
    [Google Scholar]
35. 35. 

    Grabarek Z, Gergely J. 1990. Zero-length crosslinking procedure with the use of active esters. Anal. Biochem. 185:131–35
    [Google Scholar]
36. 36. 

    Greenleaf WJ, Woodside MT, Block SM. 2007. High-resolution, single-molecule measurements of biomolecular motion. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 36:171–90
    [Google Scholar]
37. 37. 

    Grome MW, Zhang Z, Pincet F, Lin C. 2018. Vesicle tabulation with self-assembling DNA nanosprings. Angew. Chem. 57:5330–34
    [Google Scholar]
38. 38. 

    Halvorsen K, Schaak D, Wong WP. 2011. Nanoengineering a single-molecule mechanical switch using DNA self-assembly. Nanotechnology 22:494005
    [Google Scholar]
39. 39. 

    Henzler-Wildman K, Kern D. 2007. Dynamic personalities of proteins. Nature 450:964–72
    [Google Scholar]
40. 40. 

    Hernández-Ainsa S, Bell NAW, Thacker VV, Göpfrich K, Misiunas K et al. 2013. DNA origami nanopores for controlling DNA translocation. ACS Nano 7:6024–30
    [Google Scholar]
41. 41. 

    Hernández-Ainsa S, Misiunas K, Thacker VV, Hemmig EA, Keyser UF. 2014. Voltage-dependent properties of DNA origami nanopores. Nano Lett 14:1270–74
    [Google Scholar]
42. 42. 

    Hong F, Zhang F, Liu Y, Yan H. 2017. DNA origami: scaffolds for creating higher order structures. Chem. Rev. 117:12584–640
    [Google Scholar]
43. 43. 

    Huang C-M, Kucinic A, Johnson JA, Su H-J, Castro CE. 2020. Integrating computer-aided engineering and computer-aided design for DNA assemblies. bioRxiv 119701. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.28.119701
    [Crossref]
44. 44. 

    Iwaki M, Wickham SF, Ikezaki K, Yanagida T, Shih WM. 2016. A programmable DNA origami nanospring that reveals force-induced adjacent binding of myosin VI heads. Nat. Commun. 7:13715
    [Google Scholar]
45. 45. 

    Jain M, Olsen HE, Paten B, Akeson M. 2016. The Oxford Nanopore MinION: delivery of nanopore sequencing to the genomics community. Genome Biol 17:239
    [Google Scholar]
46. 46. 

    Journot CMA, Ramakrishna V, Wallace MI, Turberfield AJ. 2019. Modifying membrane morphology and interactions with DNA origami clathrin-mimic networks. ACS Nano 13:9973–79
    [Google Scholar]
47. 47. 

    Jungmann R, Steinhauer C, Scheible M, Kuzyk A, Tinnefeld P, Simmel FC. 2010. Single-molecule kinetics and super-resolution microscopy by fluorescence imaging of transient binding on DNA origami. Nano Lett 10:4756–61
    [Google Scholar]
48. 48. 

    Junker JP, Ziegler F, Rief M. 2009. Ligand-dependent equilibrium fluctuations of single calmodulin molecules. Science 323:633–37
    [Google Scholar]
49. 49. 

    Ke Y, Meyer T, Shih WM, Bellot G. 2016. Regulation at a distance of biomolecular interactions using a DNA origami nanoactuator. Nat. Commun. 7:10935
    [Google Scholar]
50. 50. 

    Ketterer P, Willner EM, Dietz H. 2016. Nanoscale rotary apparatus formed from tight-fitting 3D DNA components. Sci. Adv. 2:e1501209
    [Google Scholar]
51. 51. 

    Kilchherr F, Wachauf C, Pelz B, Rief M, Zacharias M, Dietz H. 2016. Single-molecule dissection of stacking forces in DNA. Science 353:aaf5508
    [Google Scholar]
52. 52. 

    Kim J, Zhang C-Z, Zhang X, Springer TA. 2010. A mechanically stabilized receptor-ligand flex-bond important in the vasculature. Nature 466:992–95
    [Google Scholar]
53. 53. 

    Kocabey S, Kempter S, List J, Xing Y, Bae W et al. 2015. Membrane-assisted growth of DNA origami nanostructure arrays. ACS Nano 9:3530–39
    [Google Scholar]
54. 54. 

    Kopperger E, List J, Madhira S, Rothfischer F, Lamb DC, Simmel FC. 2018. A self-assembled nanoscale robotic arm controlled by electric fields. Science 359:296–301
    [Google Scholar]
55. 55. 

    Kosuri P, Altheimer BD, Dai M, Yin P, Zhuang X. 2019. Rotation tracking of genome-processing enzymes using DNA origami rotors. Nature 572:136–40
    [Google Scholar]
56. 56. 

    Kramm K, Schröder T, Gouge J, Vera AM, Gupta K et al. 2020. DNA origami-based single-molecule force spectroscopy elucidates RNA polymerase III pre-initiation complex stability. Nat. Commun. 11:2828
    [Google Scholar]
57. 57. 

    Krishnan S, Ziegler D, Arnaut V, Martin TG, Kapsner K et al. 2016. Molecular transport through large-diameter DNA nanopores. Nat. Commun. 7:12787
    [Google Scholar]
58. 58. 

    Langecker M, Arnaut V, Martin TG, List J, Renner S et al. 2012. Synthetic lipid membrane channels formed by designed DNA nanostructures. Science 338:932–36
    [Google Scholar]
59. 59. 

    Le JV, Luo Y, Darcy MA, Lucas CR, Goodwin MF et al. 2016. Probing nucleosome stability with a DNA origami nanocaliper. ACS Nano 10:7073–84
    [Google Scholar]
60. 60. 

    Lee DS, Qian H, Tay CY, Leong DT. 2016. Cellular processing and destinies of artificial DNA nanostructures. Chem. Soc. Rev. 45:4199–225
    [Google Scholar]
61. 61. 

    Lin C, Jungmann R, Leifer AM, Li C, Levner D et al. 2012. Submicrometre geometrically encoded fluorescent barcodes self-assembled from DNA. Nat. Chem. 4:832–39
    [Google Scholar]
62. 62. 

    Linko V, Eerikäinen M, Kostiainen MA. 2015. A modular DNA origami-based enzyme cascade nanoreactor. Chem. Commun. 51:5351–54
    [Google Scholar]
63. 63. 

    List J, Falgenhauer E, Kopperger E, Pardatscher G, Simmel FC. 2016. Long-range movement of large mechanically interlocked DNA nanostructures. Nat. Commun. 7:12414
    [Google Scholar]
64. 64. 

    Liu CC, Schultz PG. 2010. Adding new chemistries to the genetic code. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 79:413–44
    [Google Scholar]
65. 65. 

    Los GV, Encell LP, McDougall MG, Hartzell DD, Karassina N et al. 2008. HaloTag: a novel protein labeling technology for cell imaging and protein analysis. ACS Chem. Biol. 3:373–82
    [Google Scholar]
66. 66. 

    Mao H, Hart SA, Schink A, Pollok BA. 2004. Sortase-mediated protein ligation: a new method for protein engineering. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 126:2670–71
    [Google Scholar]
67. 67. 

    Martin TG, Bharat TAM, Joerger AC, Bai X, Praetorius F et al. 2016. Design of a molecular support for cryo-EM structure determination. PNAS 113:E7456–63
    [Google Scholar]
68. 68. 

    Milczek EM. 2018. Commercial applications for enzyme-mediated protein conjugation: new developments in enzymatic processes to deliver functionalized proteins on the commercial scale. Chem. Rev. 118:119–41
    [Google Scholar]
69. 69. 

    Moy VT, Florin EL, Gaub HE. 1994. Intermolecular forces and energies between ligands and receptors. Science 266:257–59
    [Google Scholar]
70. 70. 

    Nickels PC, Wünsch B, Holzmeister P, Bae W, Kneer LM et al. 2016. Molecular force spectroscopy with a DNA origami-based nanoscopic force clamp. Science 354:305–7
    [Google Scholar]
71. 71. 

    Niemeyer CM. 2002. The developments of semisynthetic DNA-protein conjugates. Trends Biotechnol 20:395–401
    [Google Scholar]
72. 72. 

    Niemeyer CM. 2010. Semisynthetic DNA-protein conjugates for biosensing and nanofabrication. Angew. Chem. 49:1200–16
    [Google Scholar]
73. 73. 

    Niemeyer CM, Sano T, Smith CL, Cantor CR. 1994. Oligonucleotide-directed self-assembly of proteins: semisynthetic DNA–streptavidin hybrid molecules as connectors for the generation of macroscopic arrays and the construction of supramolecular bioconjugates. Nucleic Acids Res 22:5530–39
    [Google Scholar]
74. 74. 

    Noji H, Yasuda R, Yoshida M, Kinosita K Jr. 1997. Direct observation of the rotation of F₁-ATPase. Nature 386:299–302
    [Google Scholar]
75. 75. 

    Pawson T, Scott JD. 1997. Signaling through scaffold, anchoring, and adaptor proteins. Science 278:2075–80
    [Google Scholar]
76. 76. 

    Perrault SD, Shih WM. 2014. Virus-inspired membrane encapsulation of DNA nanostructures to achieve in vivo stability. ACS Nano 8:5132–40
    [Google Scholar]
77. 77. 

    Pfitzner E, Wachauf C, Kilchherr F, Pelz B, Shih WM et al. 2013. Rigid DNA beams for high-resolution single-molecule mechanics. Angew. Chem. 52:7766–71
    [Google Scholar]
78. 78. 

    Phillips R, Kondev J, Theriot J. 2013. Physical Biology of the Cell New York: Garland Sci.
79. 79. 

    Plesa C, Ananth AN, Linko V, Gülcher C, Katan AJ et al. 2014. Ionic permeability and mechanical properties of DNA origami nanoplates on solid-state nanopores. ACS Nano 8:35–43
    [Google Scholar]
80. 80. 

    Ponnuswamy N, Bastings MMC, Nathwani B, Ryu JH, Chou LYT et al. 2017. Oligolysine-based coating protects DNA nanostructures from low-salt denaturation and nuclease degradation. Nat. Commun. 8:15654
    [Google Scholar]
81. 81. 

    Praetorius F, Kick B, Behler KL, Honemann MN, Weuster-Botz D, Dietz H. 2017. Biotechnological mass production of DNA origami. Nature 552:84–87
    [Google Scholar]
82. 82. 

    Rabuka D, Rush JS, deHart GW, Wu P, Bertozzi CR. 2012. Site-specific chemical protein conjugation using genetically encoded aldehyde tags. Nat. Protoc. 7:1052–67
    [Google Scholar]
83. 83. 

    Ramezani H, Dietz H. 2020. Building machines with DNA molecules. Nat. Rev. Genet. 21:5–26
    [Google Scholar]
84. 84. 

    Rand AC, Jain M, Eizenga JM, Musselman-Brown A, Olsen HE et al. 2017. Mapping DNA methylation with high-throughput nanopore sequencing. Nat. Methods 14:411–13
    [Google Scholar]
85. 85. 

    Rief M, Gautel M, Oesterhelt F, Fernandez JM, Gaub HE. 1997. Reversible unfolding of individual titin immunoglobulin domains by AFM. Science 276:1109–12
    [Google Scholar]
86. 86. 

    Rinker S, Ke Y, Liu Y, Chhabra R, Yan H. 2008. Self-assembled DNA nanostructures for distance dependent multivalent ligand-protein binding. Nat. Nanotechnol. 3:418–22
    [Google Scholar]
87. 87. 

    Rosen CB, Kodal ALB, Nielsen JS, Schaffert DH, Scavenius C et al. 2014. Template-directed covalent conjugation of DNA to native antibodies, transferrin and other metal-binding proteins. Nat. Chem. 6:804–9
    [Google Scholar]
88. 88. 

    Rosier BJHM, Cremers GAO, Engelen W, Merkx M, Brunsveld L, de Greef TFA. 2017. Incorporation of native antibodies and Fc-fusion proteins on DNA nanostructures via a modular conjugation strategy. Chem. Commun. 53:7393–96
    [Google Scholar]
89. 89. 

    Rosier BJHM, Markvoort AJ, Gumí Audenis B, Roodhuizen JAL, den Hamer A et al. 2020. Proximity-induced caspase-9 activation on a DNA origami-based synthetic apoptosome. Nat. Catal. 3:295–306
    [Google Scholar]
90. 90. 

    Rothemund PWK. 2006. Folding DNA to create nanoscale shapes and patterns. Nature 440:297–302
    [Google Scholar]
91. 91. 

    Sannohe Y, Endo M, Katsuda Y, Hidaka K, Sugiyama H. 2010. Visualization of dynamic conformational switching of the G-quadruplex in a DNA nanostructure. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 132:16311–13
    [Google Scholar]
92. 92. 

    Schmied JJ, Gietl A, Holzmeister P, Forthmann C, Steinhauer C et al. 2012. Fluorescence and super-resolution standards based on DNA origami. Nat. Methods 9:1133–34
    [Google Scholar]
93. 93. 

    Selvin PR, Ha T. 2008. Single-Molecule Techniques: A Laboratory Manual Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harb. Lab. Press
94. 94. 

    Shaw A, Hoffecker IT, Smyrlaki I, Rosa J, Grevys A et al. 2019. Binding to nanopatterned antigens is dominated by the spatial tolerance of antibodies. Nat. Nanotechnol. 14:184–90
    [Google Scholar]
95. 95. 

    Simpson JT, Workman RE, Zuzarte PC, David M, Dursi LJ, Timp W. 2017. Detecting DNA cytosine methylation using nanopore sequencing. Nat. Methods 14:407–10
    [Google Scholar]
96. 96. 

    Singh Y, Murat P, Defrancq E. 2010. Recent developments in oligonucleotide conjugation. Chem. Soc. Rev. 39:2054–70
    [Google Scholar]
97. 97. 

    Steinhauer C, Jungmann R, Sobey TL, Simmel FC, Tinnefeld P. 2009. DNA origami as a nanoscopic ruler for super-resolution microscopy. Angew. Chem. 48:8870–73
    [Google Scholar]
98. 98. 

    Stigler J, Ziegler F, Gieseke A, Gebhardt JC, Rief M. 2011. The complex folding network of single calmodulin molecules. Science 334:512–16
    [Google Scholar]
99. 99. 

    Šulc P, Romano F, Ouldridge TE, Rovigatti L, Doye JPK, Louis AA. 2012. Sequence-dependent thermodynamics of a coarse-grained DNA model. J. Chem. Phys. 137:135101
    [Google Scholar]
100. 100. 

     Suzuki Y, Endo M, Canas C, Ayora S, Alonso JC et al. 2014. Direct analysis of Holliday junction resolving enzyme in a DNA origami nanostructure. Nucleic Acids Res 42:7421–28
     [Google Scholar]
101. 101. 

     Suzuki Y, Endo M, Sugiyama H. 2015. Lipid-bilayer-assisted two-dimensional self-assembly of DNA origami nanostructures. Nat. Commun. 6:8052
     [Google Scholar]
102. 102. 

     Thomsen RP, Malle MG, Okholm AH, Krishnan S, Bohr SS-R et al. 2019. A large size-selective DNA nanopore with sensing applications. Nat. Commun. 10:5655
     [Google Scholar]
103. 103. 

     Tinland B, Pluen A, Sturm J, Weill G. 1997. Persistence length of single-stranded DNA. Macromolecules 30:5763–65
     [Google Scholar]
104. 104. 

     Trads JB, Tørring T, Gothelf KV. 2017. Site-selective conjugation of native proteins with DNA. Acc. Chem. Res. 50:1367–74
     [Google Scholar]
105. 105. 

     Veneziano R, Moyer TJ, Stone MB, Wamhoff E-C, Read BJ et al. 2020. Role of nanoscale antigen organization on B-cell activation probed using DNA origami. Nat. Nanotechnol. 15:716–23
     [Google Scholar]
106. 106. 

     Wagenbauer KF, Engelhardt FAS, Stahl E, Hechtl VK, Stömmer P et al. 2017. How we make DNA origami. ChemBioChem 18:1873–85
     [Google Scholar]
107. 107. 

     Wamhoff E-C, Banal JL, Bricker WP, Shepherd TR, Parsons MF et al. 2019. Programming structured DNA assemblies to probe biophysical processes. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 48:395–419
     [Google Scholar]
108. 108. 

     Wang P, Rahman MA, Zhao Z, Weiss K, Zhang C et al. 2018. Visualization of the cellular uptake and trafficking of DNA origami nanostructures in cancer cells. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 140:2478–84
     [Google Scholar]
109. 109. 

     Wei R, Martin TG, Rant U, Dietz H. 2012. DNA origami gatekeepers for solid-state nanopores. Angew. Chem. 51:4864–67
     [Google Scholar]
110. 110. 

     Wells JA, McClendon CL. 2007. Reaching for high-hanging fruit in drug discovery at protein–protein interfaces. Nature 450:1001–9
     [Google Scholar]
111. 111. 

     Wilner OI, Weizmann Y, Gill R, Lioubashevski O, Freeman R, Willner I. 2009. Enzyme cascades activated on topologically programmed DNA scaffolds. Nat. Nanotechnol. 4:249–54
     [Google Scholar]
112. 112. 

     Xu W, Nathwani B, Lin C, Wang J, Karatekin E et al. 2016. A programmable DNA origami platform to organize SNAREs for membrane fusion. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 138:4439–47
     [Google Scholar]
113. 113. 

     Yang Y, Wang J, Shigematsu H, Xu W, Shih WM et al. 2016. Self-assembly of size-controlled liposomes on DNA nanotemplates. Nat. Chem. 8:476–83
     [Google Scholar]
114. 114. 

     Zhang P, Liu X, Liu P, Wang F, Ariyama H et al. 2020. Capturing transient antibody conformations with DNA origami epitopes. Nat. Commun. 11:3114
     [Google Scholar]
115. 115. 

     Zhang Y, Tsitkov S, Hess H. 2016. Proximity does not contribute to activity enhancement in the glucose oxidase-horseradish peroxidase cascade. Nat. Commun. 7:13982
     [Google Scholar]
116. 116. 

     Zhang Z, Yang Y, Pincet F, Llaguno MC, Lin C. 2017. Placing and shaping liposomes with reconfigurable DNA nanocages. Nat. Chem. 9:653–59
     [Google Scholar]
117. 117. 

     Zhou C, Yang Z, Liu D 2012. Reversible regulation of protein binding affinity by a DNA machine. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134:1416–18
     [Google Scholar]
118. 118. 

     Zhou L, Marras AE, Su H-J, Castro CE. 2015. Direct design of an energy landscape with bistable DNA origami mechanisms. Nano Lett 15:1815–21
     [Google Scholar]