Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33585701›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Chemistry2021

Nuclease resistance of DNA nanostructures.

Arun Richard Chandrasekaran

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Chemistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 123 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
123citing papers in PubMed
–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

123 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Supramolecular Degraders: An Emerging Paradigm in Targeted Protein Degradation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. DNA Nanostructures for siRNA Delivery.Bioconjugate chemistry · 2026
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

63 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

1 author.

Arun Richard ChandrasekaranThe RNA Institute, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6757-5464

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA nanotechnology has progressed from proof-of-concept demonstrations of structural design towards application-oriented research. As a natural material with excellent self-assembling properties, DNA is an indomitable choice for various biological applications, including biosensing, cell modulation, bioimaging and drug delivery. However, a major impediment to the use of DNA nanostructures in biological applications is their susceptibility to attack by nucleases present in the physiological environment. Although several DNA nanostructures show enhanced resistance to nuclease attack compared with duplexes and plasmid DNA, this may be inadequate for practical application. Recently, several strategies have been developed to increase the nuclease resistance of DNA nanostructures while retaining their functions, and the stability of various DNA nanostructures has been studied in biological fluids, such as serum, urine and cell lysates. This Review discusses the approaches used to modulate nuclease resistance in DNA nanostructures and provides an overview of the techniques employed to evaluate resistance to degradation and quantify stability.

Indexed as

DNADNA nanostructuresNanobiotechnology

Identifiers

PMID33585701
PMCPMC7873672

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.