Self-assembly of 3-D structures using 2-D folding tiles

Self-assembly is a process which is ubiquitous in natural, especially biological systems. It occurs when groups of relatively simple components spontaneously combine to form more complex structures. While such systems have inspired a large amount of research into designing theoretical models of self-assembling systems, and even laboratory-based implementations of them, these artificial models and systems often tend to be lacking in one of the powerful features of natural systems (e.g. the assembly and folding of proteins), which is dynamic reconfigurability of structures. In this paper, we present a new mathematical model of self-assembly, based on the abstract Tile Assembly Model (aTAM), called the Flexible Tile Assembly Model (FTAM). In the FTAM, the individual components are 2-dimensional tiles as in the aTAM, but in the FTAM, bonds between the edges of tiles can be flexible, allowing bonds to flex and entire structures to reconfigure, thus allowing 2-dimensional components to form 3-dimensional structures. We analyze the powers and limitations of FTAM systems by (1) demonstrating how flexibility can be controlled to carefully build desired structures, and (2) showing how flexibility can be beneficially harnessed to form structures which can “efficiently” reconfigure into many different configurations and/or greatly varying configurations. We also show that with such power comes a heavy burden in terms of computational complexity of simulation and prediction by proving that for important properties of FTAM systems, determining their existence is intractable, even for properties which are easily computed for systems in less dynamic models.

[1]  Jacob Hendricks,et al.  Signal transmission across tile assemblies: 3D static tiles simulate active self-assembly by 2D signal-passing tiles , 2014, Natural Computing.

[2]  Erik Winfree,et al.  An information-bearing seed for nucleating algorithmic self-assembly , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  Mihalis Yannakakis,et al.  On the Complexity of Protein Folding , 1998, J. Comput. Biol..

[4]  N. Seeman,et al.  Crystalline two-dimensional DNA-origami arrays. , 2011, Angewandte Chemie.

[5]  Natasa Jonoska,et al.  Complexity classes for self-assembling flexible tiles , 2009, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[6]  David Eppstein,et al.  Folding Polyominoes into (Poly)Cubes , 2015, CCCG.

[7]  Natasa Jonoska,et al.  A Computational Model for Self-assembling Flexible Tiles , 2005, UC.

[8]  Prosenjit Bose,et al.  Common Unfoldings of Polyominoes and Polycubes , 2010, CGGA.

[9]  Nataša Jonoska,et al.  Active Tile Self-assembly, Part 2: Self-Similar Structures and Structural Recursion , 2014, Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci..

[10]  P. Rothemund Folding DNA to create nanoscale shapes and patterns , 2006, Nature.

[11]  Matthew J. Patitz,et al.  Asynchronous signal Passing for Tile Self-assembly: Fuel Efficient Computation and Efficient assembly of Shapes , 2012, Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci..

[12]  Jacob Hendricks,et al.  Reflections on tiles (in self-assembly) , 2017, Natural Computing.

[13]  Paul W. K. Rothemund,et al.  Design of DNA origami , 2005, ICCAD-2005. IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, 2005..

[14]  M. Sahani,et al.  Algorithmic Self-Assembly of DNA , 2006 .

[15]  Natasa Jonoska,et al.  Active Tile Self-assembly, Part 1: Universality at temperature 1 , 2014, Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci..