Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37758710›Full record

ArticleNature communications2023

A digital twin for DNA data storage based on comprehensive quantification of errors and biases.

Andreas L Gimpel, Wendelin J Stark, Reinhard Heckel, Robert N Grass

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

4 authors.

Andreas L GimpelDepartment of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences, ETH Zürich, Vladimir-Prelog-Weg 1-5, 8093, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8890-3292
Wendelin J StarkDepartment of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences, ETH Zürich, Vladimir-Prelog-Weg 1-5, 8093, Zürich, Switzerland.
Reinhard HeckelDepartment of Computer Engineering, Technical University of Munich, Arcistrasse 21, 80333, Munich, Germany.
Robert N GrassDepartment of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences, ETH Zürich, Vladimir-Prelog-Weg 1-5, 8093, Zürich, Switzerland. robert.grass@chem.ethz.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6968-0823

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Archiving data in synthetic DNA offers unprecedented storage density and longevity. Handling and storage introduce errors and biases into DNA-based storage systems, necessitating the use of Error Correction Coding (ECC) which comes at the cost of added redundancy. However, insufficient data on these errors and biases, as well as a lack of modeling tools, limit data-driven ECC development and experimental design. In this study, we present a comprehensive characterisation of the error sources and biases present in the most common DNA data storage workflows, including commercial DNA synthesis, PCR, decay by accelerated aging, and sequencing-by-synthesis. Using the data from 40 sequencing experiments, we build a digital twin of the DNA data storage process, capable of simulating state-of-the-art workflows and reproducing their experimental results. We showcase the digital twin's ability to replace experiments and rationalize the design of redundancy in two case studies, highlighting opportunities for tangible cost savings and data-driven ECC development.

Indexed as

DNADNA ReplicationBiasLongevityDNA

Identifiers

PMID37758710
PMCPMC10533828

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.