DNA Computer Works in Human Cells

Simple biological computer may someday perform complex diagnoses of cancer and other diseases from inside individual cells

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Researchers have designed a new type of DNA computer that works in human cells, perhaps paving the way for a distant technology capable of picking out diseased cells from otherwise healthy tissue. The system runs on a process called RNA interference (RNAi) in which small molecules of RNA prevent a gene from producing protein.

The goal is to inject human cells with DNA that can determine whether a cell is cancerous or otherwise diseased, based solely on the mix of molecules inside the cell. Sensing disease, the DNA might trigger a pinpoint dose of treatment in response. That technology, however, is a long way off. For now, researchers are testing different ways of turning DNA into versatile computers that can detect certain combinations of molecules and respond by producing other molecules.

"The central challenge is how do you create a 'molecular computer' capable of making decisions," says bioengineer Yaakov Benenson of Harvard University. Researchers have designed powerful test tube DNA computers that could play tic-tac-toe or perform the basic tasks of logic, but getting them to work in human cells was likely to be tricky, Benenson says.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


RNAi is something that cells do naturally. Cells produce what are known as short interfering RNA (siRNA) molecules, which recognize corresponding DNA sequences in genes and cause them to shut down.

Benenson and colleagues engineered a target gene to be sensitive to several different siRNAs of their own design. In the simplest case, they introduced a single siRNA molecule to switch off a target gene that encoded a fluorescent protein. In more complex cases, a pair of siRNAs or either of two siRNAs switched off another target gene, which in turn switched off a gene for a fluorescent protein. To make sure the system worked as intended, the researchers based their siRNAs on those of other species, they report in a paper published online today by Nature Biotechnology.

In principle, the RNAi technique can reach great heights of complexity, Benenson says, by making genes sensitive to more and more siRNAs in various combinations. "The scalability is very important, because eventually you want to make complex decisions," he says.

He says the next step is figuring out how to make the molecules inside a cell—such as those that are overproduced in cancer—trigger the production of siRNAs.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe