Structural DNA nanotechnology
- 2D DNA origami
- extended 2D lattice crystals
- 3D DNA cages
- 3D DNA blocks made from staple Bricks as voxels
- hierarchical shape assembly of blocks controlled by salt concentration
- micro sized periodic 3D structures
- structures with elastic links that act as rotation allowing hinges actuated by single strand DNA as entropic spring
- more complex linkage structures including an sliding element
- operation in non water solvents
When one watches the simulation of the self assembly process of DNA bricks [TODO add link] one is led to doubt the stiffness of the product. The DNA double helix can create siff polymeres if the used doublehelix segments are kept in the length range from one to three turns. Mentioned here  under the section "DNA as Construction Material" and referenced here  (unchecked). Is there quantitative information about the stiffness of whole DNA bricks (to investigate)?
Harvard's Wyss Institute:
- large DNA crystals with precisely prescribed depths and complex 3D features (paper ...)
- 3D DNA structures using DNA "Bricks"
- DNA origami
- Scientists create custom three-dimensional structures with "DNA origami"
- Ten years of DNA origami (2016-03-18)
- Short introduction video series to structural DNA nanotechnology by William Shih (Harvard) 2014-04
(Part 1: Nanofabrication via DNA Origami) (Part 2: Nanofabrication via DNA Single Stranded Bricks ) (Part 3: DNA-Nanostructure Tools)
- Youtube TEDMED: early medical applications still more on the side of the brownian technology path
- De-novo protein engineering – Compared to SDN it is stiffer (good) but has less termination control (bad).
- Steric traps
- Hierarchical selfassembly
- Algorithmic selfassembly
- Stiffness – SDN lacks it quite a bit, so much in fact that
it only features topological atomic precision not positional atomic precision
- Hagerman, P.J. (1988), Flexibility of DNA, Ann. Rev. Biophys. & Biophys. Chem. 17, 265-286.