Cited by 68DNA and Biological ComputingAdvanced Data Storage TechnologiesAlgorithms and Data Compression

An Empirical Comparison of Preservation Methods for Synthetic DNA Data Storage

Open access
Organick, Lee, Nguyen, Bichlien H., McAmis, Rachel, Chen, Weida D., Kohll, A. Xavier, Ang, Siena Dumas, Grass, Robert N., Ceze, Luis +1 more·2021·Small Methods

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Synthetic DNA has recently risen as a viable alternative for long‐term digital data storage. To ensure that information is safely recovered after storage, it is essential to appropriately preserve the physical DNA molecules encoding the data. While preservation of biological DNA has been studied previously, synthetic DNA differs in that it is typically much shorter in length, it has different sequence profiles with fewer, if any, repeats (or homopolymers), and it has different contaminants. In this paper, nine different methods used to preserve data files encoded in synthetic DNA are evaluated by accelerated aging of nearly 29 000 DNA sequences. In addition to a molecular count comparison, the DNA is also sequenced and analyzed after aging. These findings show that errors and erasures are stochastic and show no practical distribution difference between preservation methods. Finally, the physical density of these methods is compared and a stability versus density trade‐offs discussion provided.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/smtd.202001094

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. K. J. Tomek, K. Volkel, A. Simpson, A. G. Hass, E. W. Indermaur, J. Tuck, A. J. Keung, bioRxiv, http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/591594. · DOI
  2. R. N. Grass, R. Heckel, M. Puddu, D. Paunescu, W. J. Stark, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 2552. ISBN: 2012290248.
  3. R. Guthrie, JAMA 1961, 178, 863.
  4. T. C. Boothby, H. Tapia, A. H. Brozena, S. Piszkiewicz, A. E. Smith, I. Giovannini, L. Rebecchi, G. J. Pielak, D. Koshland, B. Goldstein, Mol. Cell 2017, 65, 975.
  5. A.-L. Fabre, A. Luis, M. Colotte, S. Tuffet, J. Bonnet, PLoS One 2017, 12, 11.
  6. M. E. Allentoft, M. Collins, D. Harker, J. Haile, C. L. Oskam, M. L. Hale, P. F. Campos, J. A. Samaniego, M. T. P. Gilbert, E. Willerslev, G. Zhang, R. P. Scofield, R. N. Holdaway, M. Bunce, Proc. R. Soc. B 2012, 279, 4724.
  7. T. Lindahl, B. Nyberg, Biochemistry 1972, 11, 3610.
  8. D. Clermont, S. Santoni, S. Saker, M. Gomard, E. Gardais, C. Bizet, Biopreserv. Biobanking 2014, 12, 176.
  9. S. E. Howlett, H. S. Castillo, L. J. Gioeni, J. M. Robertson, J. Donfack, Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 2014, 8, 170.
  10. W. D. Chen, A. X. Kohll, B. H. Nguyen, J. Koch, R. Heckel, W. J. Stark, L. Ceze, K. Strauss, R. N. Grass, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2019, 29, 1901672.
  11. M. Colotte, D. Coudy, S. Tuffet, J. Bonnet, Biopreserv. Biobanking 2011, 9, 47.
  12. I. S. Reed, G. Solomon, J. Soc. Ind. Appl. Math. 1960, 8, 300.
  13. S. Newman, A. P. Stephenson, M. Willsey, B. H. Nguyen, C. N. Takahashi, K. Strauss, L. Ceze, Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 1.
  14. N. V. Ivanova, M. L. Kuzmina, Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2013, 13, 890.
  15. R. C. Dobberstein, J. Huppertz, N. von Wurmb-Schwark, S. Ritz-Timme, Forensic Sci. Int. 2008, 179, 181.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Organick, L., Nguyen, B. H., McAmis, R., Chen, W. D., Kohll, A. X., Ang, S. D., Grass, R. N., Ceze, L., & Strauss, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • University of Washington Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering Seattle WA 98195 USA
Corresponding author
  • Organick, Lee
  • Nguyen, Bichlien H.
Venue
Small Methods
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-01-25
Volume
5
Issue
5
Pages
e2001094-e2001094
ISSN
2366-9608 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3124250152
Cited by
67
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 5
FWCI
3.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Small Methods (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection
Funders
  • Microsoft
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › DNA and Biological Computing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Advanced Data Storage Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Algorithms and Data Compression
Keywords
DNA preservation, accelerated aging, DNA degradation, data deletion, error distribution, storage density
MeSH terms
Base Sequence, DNA, Half-Life, Temperature, Time Factors, Trehalose, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Magnetite Nanoparticles, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review