Posts Tagged ‘DNA’

MIT software could bring ‘DNA origami’ to the masses

April 28th, 2011

DNA molecules are not merely carriers of information. They are also highly stable and programmable, which is why researchers have been working so feverishly on a design strategy called DNA origami.

And now a team at MIT is developing a program that makes the game playable by more than just a select few.

DNA origami–constructing specific 2D and 3D shapes out of DNA strands–could prove to be a highly effective means of developing nanoscale tools, such as synthetic photocells that perform artificial photosynthesis and highly targeted drugs (think of sending a cancer drug to hunt down a specific tumor).

But it’s still young. Paul Rothemund of CalTech first introduced DNA origami in 2006 (thereby making the cover of Nature and delivering a TED Talk showing tiny DNA smiley faces), and William Shih’s lab at Harvard Medical School was able to up the game from 2D to 3D a few years later.

The result is that today a small number of brilliant and highly specialized minds are bent over a nanoscale game of origami, playing with various sequences to try to build specific shapes for specific tasks. Imagine a room of highly sophisticated gamers playing with building blocks in a world without Tetris; if they had the game, they’d be able to work faster.

This is where the team at MIT, led by biological engineer Mark Bathe, comes in. They’ve developed software that makes it far easier, with a given DNA template, to predict the three-dimensional shape that will result.

“They’re sort of building blocks, but it’s even more crude because DNA is just a sequence,” Bathe says. “It’s taking the places you would connect the DNA together and predicting with a computer what it would look like in the final shape. The goal is to really have this be in the inverse, so the designer wants to make a box or a basket or a gear and then the program tries different folding combinations to give you the shape you want.”

DNA comprises a string of four nucleotide bases called A, T, G, and C, with A binding only with T and G only with C. Rothemund found that he was able to get a long strand of DNA to fold using a viral genome that consisted of 8,000 of these nucleotides to create 2D stars, triangles, and yes, those smiley faces. That one strand served as a scaffold for the rest of the structure, with literally hundreds of shorter strands (only 20 to 40 bases in length) combining with the long strand to hold its desired shape.

Bathe says his software presented a mathematical and computation challenge, but that because DNA is governed by physics in terms of how it bends and twists and folds, DNA origami is very clean and obedient. Proteins, he says, are much messier, making protein-folding far more complex, which is why the game Foldit exists. (Researchers opened the process up to the masses in the hopes that a greater volume of people working on the problem might speed up progress.)

Bathe and his team, who haven’t resorted to a game just yet, provide a primer of their software in the Feb. 25 issue of Nature Methods, and they’re already working on making the program more automated and “unsupervised,” because at this point it’s still largely manual.

“Designers still have to guess the rules and then based on the shape modify the rules to get closer to the shape,” Bathe says. “It’s the Holy Grail to say, ‘I want this,’ and then it happens. We’ve made quite some progress already, so I think in the next half year to a year that should be coming out.”

Ever the optimist, Bathe was quoted in the MIT news release saying, “Once nonspecialists can design arbitrary 3D nanostructures using DNA origami, their imaginations can run free.” Ever the realist, I had to ask whether such an achievement might also be risky in the wrong hands. For Bathe, this is the conundrum we face in light of most advancements; the potential for progress, he hopes, far outweighs the risks.

Source:http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20057983-247.html

Biologically inspired software digitally mimics DNA matching to catch cybercrooks

November 18th, 2010

Watch out cybercriminals cause there is a revolutionary new software superhero in town and it’s meant to kick your butts right into jail. It’s proven effective in tracking down cyberthugs in mere seconds.

The real-time information security tool, called guardINQ, came out of Scotland’s Edinburgh Napier University. The biologically inspired software digitally mimics the DNA matching process used in the real world and allows CCTV-style monitoring of online systems, building up a sequence of hackers’ activities.

Dr. Jamie Graves, chief executive and co-founder of Inquisitive Systems, said: “Put simply, we can now track cyber criminals 24/7. We go to the heart of the matter, not only detecting criminal activity but intervening in real time to reduce cyber crime. The GuardInQ technology enables us to identify their digital fingerprints and prove that a certain person was behind illegal changes made to data, which gives a higher level of proof when it comes to prosecuting data crime.”

Dataloss db reports that the Ponemon Institute determines the cost of a data breach by multiplying $60 by the number of records exposed, but the real costs can be much higher. The total can quickly add up to millions in financial loss plus costly damage control to brand reputations when the breach hits the media. So if guardINQ can stop hackers fast, it could possibly save enterprises countless millions.

After learning that the new startup, Inquisitive Systems, was fast-tracked to the recent Global Security Challenge Summit in London due to its ability to fight cyber espionage and cyber terrorism, I conducted an email interview with Dr. Graves.

Email Interview with Dr. Graves, chief executive and co-founder of Inquisitive Systems, inventor of guardINQ:

How did it go at the Global Security Challenge summit?

Graves: Good! We didn’t win, but we came very close to it. The judges were impressed with the fact that we can uncover everything that happens on a system, and expressed their confidence in our ability to solve some major problems.

How long did it take to develop the software?

Graves: It has taken 5 years to develop. The first 3 years was as part of my PHD, and the next 2 developing it as a commercial product.

How is your product, guardINQ, like CCTV for computers? Is this monitoring individual hackers or viruses, trojans, malware signatures?

Graves: We monitor low-level operating system data structures. We then convert these into sequences of activity which we then analyze with our algorithms. This allows us to monitor everything that goes on a system, which has been until now been a very difficult task to perform as a great deal of data is produced, and it’s hard to analyze it this data in a fast an efficient manner. The ‘CCTV’-type recordings are lightweight sequences of the low-level data structures, and lend themselves perfectly to being compared rapidly with sequences of known, malicious, activity.

guardINQ is described as “light weight digital fingerprinting software that streams securely to a central server where they are analyzed by a set of algorithms derived from biological DNA sequence matching technology to spot malicious activity patterns.” Can you further describe how this exciting software may put a serious dent in crybercrime?

Graves: The sequences I previously mentioned lend themselves perfectly to being analyzed and matched to known sequences of malicious activities. The activities we sequence and match are kind of like DNA sequences in that they can be rapidly identified and matched with other sequences. The algorithms are interesting because of their ability to detect subtle differences between sequences. So, we can detect the difference between malware accessing a database and a human accessing a database. In addition, we can analyze this data quickly and efficiently, which means we can deal with the big data produced by an organization. The central server is usually located within the organization that deploys our software.

“Known fingerprints are flagged” — is this someone hacking into another person’s PC or server, trying to install malware, or watching every bit of activity on a server that a user accesses if your software is loaded?

Graves: Yes, it’s flagged if our software is loaded on a system. This can be someone hacking into a system, which would consist of a number of fingerprints showing a highly detailed view of all associated processes.

From a privacy angle, is it collecting personally identifiable data on users who access a server?

Graves: It doesn’t track any of that type of high-level information. It’s application agnostic, and at most will only track the name of the files.

How will guardINQ be unlike competitors and inform “the full story of WHO WHAT WHERE WHEN and WHY the incident occurred?”

Graves: Our competitors take high level operating system logs and others, which takes cumbersome and inefficient correlation techniques. We don’t use these files, and get right to the heart of the matter by monitoring everything. This allows us to reveal the who, what, where and when.

Inquisitive Systems will be releasing guardINQ as an enterprise-level piece of software in about six months. I’m fairly excited for if it works as well as it appears it will, hopefully cybercrooks will be stopped and locked away at a rapid rate.

Source:http://blogs.computerworld.com/17379/biologically_inspired_software_digitally_mimics_dna_matching_to_catch_cybercrooks?source=rss_blogs

Suit claims NYC stole 9/11 DNA software secrets

October 31st, 2010

A software company that helped identify the remains of 9/11 victims is accusing the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office of handing its secrets over to the FBI.

A Manhattan federal judge has been asked to decide if the lawsuit, filed in March by the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Gene Codes, can go forward, The New York Times reported Saturday. New York City has filed a countersuit claiming Gene Codes didn’t meet its contractual obligations.

Gene Codes’ software, known as the Mass-Fatality Identification System, helped the city analyze and organize the DNA of victims of the terrorist attack. Both sides signed a three-year contract in 2002, for which the city said it paid $13 million.

The company claims that after the contract expired, New York refused to pay it to maintain the system, then gave the FBI proprietary information once the system crashed. The city claims Gene Codes had agreed to upgrade the system for free after the city’s initial investment, and when the company didn’t follow through, it was necessary to move the information to the FBI’s database.

In court filings, the city claimed it had co-created the system by giving the company access to its database of 9/11 victims’ DNA data and giving the company guidance on system updates.

Source:http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20101031/BUSINESS/10310344/1046/Suit-claims-NYC-stole-9/11-DNA-software-secrets

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes