Single base resolution in tunneling reads of DNA composition
Shuo Huang,Jin He,Shuai Chang,Peiming Zhang,Feng Liang,Shengqin Li,Michael Tuchband,Alexander Fuhrman,Robert Ros,Stuart Lindsay
2014-01-01
Abstract:Single-molecule DNA sequencing based on measuring the physical properties of bases as they pass through a nanopore1,2 eliminates the need for the enzymes and reagents used in other approaches. Theoretical calculations indicate that electron tunneling could identify bases in singlestranded DNA, yielding long reads and eliminating enzymatic processing.3–5 It was shown recently that tunneling can sense individual nucleotides6 and nucleosides.7 Here, we show that tunneling electrodes functionalized with recognition reagents can identify a single base flanked by other bases in a short DNA oligomer. The residence time of a single base in a recognition junction is on the order of a second, but pulling the DNA through the junction with a force of tens of piconewtons would yield reading speeds of tens of bases per second. Changes in the ion current through a nanopore can be used to identify translocating nucleotides. This opens the way to DNA sequencing if an exonuclease can pass each cleaved nucleotide into the pore sequentially.8 As an alternative, it has been proposed that the high spatial resolution of electron tunneling would allow direct reading of bases in an intact DNA polymer. 3–5 Recent progress in measuring electron tunneling through nucleotides or nucleosides shows that they can be identified by means of characteristic current signals.6,7 Recognition tunneling7,9 is an approach in which electrodes are functionalized with reagents that bind the target DNA bases. Contact via molecular adsorbates has been used to produce extraordinarily high spatial resolution in atomic force microscopy10 and, as we show here, single bases can be resolved in a DNA polymer when read by means of a selective chemical contact. Correpsondence and requests for material should be addressed to SL. Web Summary: Electron tunneling via functionalized electrodes can resolve and identify a single DNA base embedded in an oligomer. Author Contributions SH, SC and JH carried out tunneling measurements and characterized the samples. PZ, FL and Sq. L designed, synthesized and characterized reagents. MT prepared tunneling probes. AF and RR carried out force spectroscopy. SL designed experiments, analyzed data and wrote the paper. Competing Financial Interests SL, PZ and JH are named as inventors in patent applications. NIH Public Access Author Manuscript Nat Nanotechnol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 August 04. Published in final edited form as: Nat Nanotechnol. 2010 December ; 5(12): 868–873. doi:10.1038/nnano.2010.213. N IH -P A A uhor M anscript N IH -P A A uhor M anscript N IH -P A A uhor M anscript To extend recognition tunneling to reads in buffered aqueous electrolyte, we synthesized the reagent 4-mercaptobenzamide (Fig. 1a and Methods) which presents two hydrogen-bond donor sites (on the nitrogen) and one hydrogen-bond acceptor site (the carbonyl). Likely binding modes to the four bases are shown in Fig. 2a.7 A gold (111) substrate and a partially-insulated gold STM probe were functionalized with this reagent (Methods and online supporting information) and characterized in an electron tunneling junction formed in a scanning tunneling microscope (PicoSPM, Agilent, Chandler, AZ). Fig. 1a shows a d(CCACC) oligomer trapped in a tunnel gap through hydrogen bonding to one mercaptobenzamide molecule on the probe and another on the substrate. In reality, the oligomer is probably held by many contacts, but only those that complete a short tunneling path (highlighted) will contribute significantly to the current. In our measurements, the probe is not deliberately scanned, but moves over the substrate as the microscope drifts. Alternatively, molecules may diffuse through the gap. Characteristic bursts of current are observed, and an example is shown in Fig. 1b. As we show below, the low frequency, large amplitude pulses indicate a C, while the high frequency, small amplitude pulses signal an A. Fig. 1c shows a sliding average of the spike amplitudes – values below the red line identify an A base unambiguously. Figure 1d shows a sliding average over the pulse frequencies (as defined for each adjacent pair of spikes) – the low frequency regions at each end enhance the confidence with which those regions can be assigned to a C base. The probability of an assignment to A (red line) or C (blue line) is shown in Fig. 1e. Calculation of these probabilities is based on our study of nucleotides, homopolymers and heteropolymers as described below. This example clearly shows that a single A base can be identified with high confidence when flanked by C bases in an intact DNA molecule. We first characterized the tunnel gap using doubly-distilled water and 0.1 mM phosphate buffer (PB – pH=7.4). Small signals were observed from buffer alone with bare electrodes, but they were much rarer when both electrodes were functionalized and the tunnel gap conductance set to 20 pS or less. (Fig. 2b and online supporting information). The tunnel decay was much more rapid (decay constant, β = 14.2±3.2 nm−1) with both electrodes functionalized than is the case in water alone (β ~ 6.1±0.7 nm−1 – 11 and online supporting information) and we estimate that the tunnel gap at i=10 pA and V = +0.5V is a little over the length of two benzamide molecules (i.e. a little greater than 2 nm). Introducing DNA nucleotides (10 μM in PB) into the tunnel gap yielded characteristic noise spikes as shown in Figs. 2c–f. The signal count rate (defined in Fig. 2k) varied considerably from 25 counts/s (5-methyl-deoxycytidine 5’-monophophate, dmCMP) to less than 1 c/s (deoxycytidine 5’-monophophate, dCMP). No signals were recorded at all with thymidine 5’-monophophate (dTMP), the signal looking exactly like the control (Fig. 2b). STM images suggest that this nucleotide binds to the surface (and presumably the probe) very strongly, blocking interactions in which a single molecule spans the junction. The current occurs in bursts of spikes (longer signal runs are given in online supporting information) and distributions of the spike heights were quite well fitted with two Gaussians distributions of the logarithm of current7 as shown in Figs 2 g–j (fitting parameters are given Supplementary Information accompanies this paper. Huang et al. Page 2 Nat Nanotechnol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 August 04. N IH -P A A uhor M anscript N IH -P A A uhor M anscript N IH -P A A uhor M anscript in the online supporting information). These histograms were generated by counting only pulses that exceeded 1.5× the SD of the local noise background – i.e., typically pulses above 6 pA (a full description of the analysis procedure is given by Chang et el.7). dCMP generates the highest signals and the lowest count rate while deoxyadenosine 5’monophophate (dAMP) and dmCMP produce the smallest signals and the highest count rate (we found little difference between cytidine and 5-methylcytidine in organic solvent7 – supporting online information). The three bases with narrower pulse height distributions (dAMP, dmCMP and GMP) often show bursts of “telegraph-noise” characteristic of sources that fluctuate between two levels9 (particularly marked for dAMP). Such a two-level distribution is a strong indication that the tunneling signals are generated by a single molecule trapped in the tunnel junction.9 The characteristics of the tunneling noise from the nucleotides are summarized in Table 1. dAMP signals are well-separated from dCMP signals, and dmCMP signals are well separated from dCMP signals in spike amplitude and in the time distribution of their signals (Table 1 and online supporting information). For this reason, we chose to investigate DNA oligomers composed of A, C and mC bases. Figs. 3a,c and e show representative tunneling noise traces for d(A)5, d(C)5 and d(C)5 with the corresponding current peak distributions shown in Figs. 3b, d and f. Comparing Fig. 3b (d(A)5) with Fig. 2g (dAMP), Fig. 3d (d(C)5) with Fig. 2h (dCMP) and Fig. 3f (d(C)5) with Fig. 2i (dmCMP) leads to the following startling conclusion: most of the polymer binding events in the tunnel junction generate signals that resemble those generated by single nucleotides. That this should be so is not obvious. It requires (1) that single bases are being read and (2) that steric constraints owing to the polymer backbone do not prevent basebinding events from dominating the signals. There are some (small) differences between nucleotide and oligomer signals: (1) Peak positions, widths and relative intensities are altered somewhat (see online supporting information for details of the fits, and the also the nucleotide distributions which have been replotted on top of the homopolymer distributions as the black lines on Figs 3b,d and f.). (2) Almost all of the signals generated by nucleotides are less than 0.1 nA at 0.5V bias (Table 1). In contrast, 20% of the total signals generated by d(A)5 and d(C)5 are larger than 0.1 nA at this bias (Table 2 this is not obvious in Figure 2 where distributions are plotted only up to 0.1nA – the high current regions are shown in the online supporting information). These high current (>0.1 nA) features in d(A)5 and d(C)5 are continuously distributed so they do not represent parallel reads of more than one base at a time (where currents would be distributed in multiples of the single molecule values12). Rather, they are new features associated with the presence of the polymeric structure in the tunnel gap. Such a nonspecific, large amplitude spike is labeled by an asterisk in Fig. 1b. Features at I > 0.1 nA appear much less frequently in oligomers of mixed sequence, suggesting that they are associated with base-stacking in the homopolymers. Fig. 3h shows a current distribution for d(ACACA) where 95% of events are below 0.1 nA. Fig. 3j shows a current distribution for d(CmCCmCC) where 99% of events are below 0.1 nA. The solid red Huang et al. Page 3 Nat Nanotechnol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 August