Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26839258›Full record

ReviewNature nanotechnology2016

Graphene nanodevices for DNA sequencing.

Stephanie J Heerema, Cees Dekker

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature nanotechnology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 116 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
116citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

116 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Substrate-Tight Graphene Transmembrane-nanofluidic Devices.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Electrokinetic Motion of Neurotransmitter Ions through a 1.01 nm Diameter Single-Walled Carbon Nanotube.The journal of physical chemistry. C, Nanomaterials and interfaces · 2025
    Article
  13. Graphene Nanopore Fabrication and Applications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

56 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Stephanie J HeeremaKavli Institute of Nanoscience Delft, Delft University of Technology, Lorentzweg 1, 2628 CJ Delft, The Netherlands.
Cees DekkerKavli Institute of Nanoscience Delft, Delft University of Technology, Lorentzweg 1, 2628 CJ Delft, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fast, cheap, and reliable DNA sequencing could be one of the most disruptive innovations of this decade, as it will pave the way for personalized medicine. In pursuit of such technology, a variety of nanotechnology-based approaches have been explored and established, including sequencing with nanopores. Owing to its unique structure and properties, graphene provides interesting opportunities for the development of a new sequencing technology. In recent years, a wide range of creative ideas for graphene sequencers have been theoretically proposed and the first experimental demonstrations have begun to appear. Here, we review the different approaches to using graphene nanodevices for DNA sequencing, which involve DNA passing through graphene nanopores, nanogaps, and nanoribbons, and the physisorption of DNA on graphene nanostructures. We discuss the advantages and problems of each of these key techniques, and provide a perspective on the use of graphene in future DNA sequencing technology.

Indexed as

Equipment DesignGraphiteNanotechnologySequence Analysis, DNAGraphite

Identifiers

PMID26839258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.