Researchers A-C-T on DNA Storage

Using a technique with multiple accuracy checks, researchers have stored large amounts of digital information on tiny volumes of synthetic DNA. Sophie Bushwick reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Scientists have used synthetic DNA to store digital files—including a photo, Shakespeare's sonnets and an audio recording of Martin Luther King. The work is published in the journal Nature. [Nick Goldman et al, Towards practical, high-capacity, low-maintenance information storage in synthesized DNA]

Unlike many forms of information storage, DNA is extremely long-lasting and does not require constant electrical power. Plus, it's tiny—a small cup of DNA can store one hundred million hours of high-quality video.

But until now, this storage method has faced too many obstacles: DNA synthesis is expensive and only works for short strings, and the decoding process creates lots of errors.


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.


To avoid these problems, British researchers broke a long string of information into many overlapping short sequences, each tagged with its position in the overall sequence. American collaborators then synthesized short pieces of DNA to match the strings, and shipped the material overseas. Finally, researchers reconstructed the digital files with complete accuracy.

DNA storage is still very expensive. But the scientists predict advancing technology will lower prices and make their method cost-effective within a decade.

—Sophie Bushwick

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

[Scientific American is part of the Nature Publishing Group.]
 

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