ArticleBiosafety and health2025
Exploring potential biosafety implications in DNA information storage.
Article in Biosafety and health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advances and challenges in non-canonical nucleic acids data storage.Nature communications · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) information storage has emerged as a promising solution to address the challenges of traditional silicon-based data storage systems. However, the biosafety implications of artificially synthesized DNA sequences in this technology remain understudied. This research evaluates the biosafety risks associated with five representative DNA storage encoding methods [Church, Goldman, DNA Fountain, Grass, and movable-type (MT) encoding] by analyzing their sequence similarities to natural biological DNA. Through Kraken2 taxonomic classification and Basic Local Alignment Search Tool for nucleotides (BLASTn) alignment analysis, we found that while most artificially designed DNA sequences showed significant differences from known biological sequences, specific encoding methods produced sequences similar to natural genomes. The MT encoding method showed the highest annotation rate (4.59 %) in Kraken2 analysis, while Goldman and Fountain methods demonstrated significant local sequence alignments in BLASTn analysis. Sequence length positively correlated with annotation rates, suggesting longer sequences pose potentially higher biosafety risks. Furthermore, aligned sequences often exhibited characteristics of tandem repeats, particularly in non-coding regions. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating biosafety considerations in DNA storage encoding method development and suggest that randomization strategies may help mitigate potential risks. Our study provides valuable insights into the safe advancement of DNA storage technology and emphasizes the need for comprehensive biosafety evaluation in synthetic biology applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.