ArticleRSC advances2026
Characterizing the structure of 3D DNA origami in a transmission electron microscope.
Article in RSC advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DNA origami nanostructures provide programmable control over nanoscale geometry but remain challenging to image due to their low atomic number. Here, we systematically evaluate imaging strategies for both stained and unstained DNA origami deposited on carbon-coated TEM grids. Using Weber contrast as a quantitative metric, we compared different operating modes of (scanning) transmission electron microscopy, (S)TEM, in order to find optimum imaging conditions. STEM was consistently found to deliver the highest contrast, with optimal performance at a camera length of 600 mm towards the high angle annular dark field (HAADF) detector. As expected, the contrast was higher for the thicker three-dimensional nanotubes as compared to DNA 6-helix bundles (6HBs) due to the larger projected thickness of the former. The contrast was effectively enhanced by heavy metal staining with uranyl formate. Notably, 3D molds preserved their designated dimensions upon staining and also largely retained their structural integrity upon complexation with palladium, which also improved the visibility of the structures. These results establish STEM as the optimal approach for high-contrast imaging of DNA origami even of unstained samples and provide practical guidelines for sample preparation and imaging conditions that promote reliable structural visualization.
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.