On 2017 Jun 28, Raphael Levy commented:

A response from Chad Mirkin. Well, nearly: a section of William Briley's PhD which starts with: "Though the endosomal escape of SNA nanostructures such as the Nanoflare and stickyflare is evident based upon their ability to provide sequence-specific information regarding RNA levels and locations within cells, one researcher [That’s me!] has concluded that SNAs cannot escape from endosomes.[75] That researcher is ignoring the many papers now that use such architectures for sequence-specific cell-sorting experiments." More here

On 2015 Nov 17, Raphael Levy commented:

David Mason and myself submitted a letter to the Editor of PNAS regarding that article. It was however deemed not to "contribute significantly to the discussion of this paper" by the editorial board, and therefore publication was declined. I leave it to the readers of PubMed Commons to decide: the letter was published as a PrePrint on bioRxiv. Our article argues that Briley et al own data show that the Sticky-Flare remain in endosome where they get degraded by nucleases (and therefore cannot report on RNA level and localisation).

On 2015 Nov 17, Raphael Levy commented:

The PNAS article itself includes a sentence which could be interpreted as SmartFlare advertising: "As a result, the Nanoflare has grown into a powerful and prolific tool in biology and medical diagnostics, with ∼1,600 unique forms commercially available today (sold under the SmartFlare trade name)." Furthermore, there is a Sticky-Flare patent which was published around a month before the communication of the PNAS article.

On 2015 Sep 28, George McNamara commented:

I posted this on PubPeer, https://pubpeer.com/publications/25CC01C366B9593D1686A78B52461F#fb36935

The Briley et al 2015 paper is deficient in methods - what is the length of the new product? what are the design criteria for specificity? how are the spherical nucleic acids constructed? Is there a mechanism by which the flare gets kicked off the SNA? I suggest PNAS explicitly require self contained full methods and materials in manuscripts they accept. The details can be in the supplemental file, and can both provide full details and cite -- or even quote -- earlier work.

The Briley COI statement states: "The authors declare no conflict of interest.". The authors and their University previously commercialized NanoFlare/SmartFlare - is PNAS sure they have not submitted patent applications for Sticky-Flare and intent to make money from it = financial interest. I am fine with commercialization of products, but if this is an advertisement for a future product, the authors should be honest in their COI an PNAS should mark the paper as an advertisement.

Citation for commercialization: "NanoFlares have been very useful for researchers that operate in the arena of quantifying gene expression. AuraSense, Inc., a biotechnology company that licensed the NanoFlare technology from Northwestern University, and EMD-Millipore, another biotech company, have commercialized NanoFlares. There are now more than 1,700 commercial forms of NanoFlares sold under the SmartFlare name in more than 230 countries." http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2015/07/new-tool-for-investigating-rna-gone-awry.html#sthash.GwI4hbRx.dpuf

One of their patents is US8507200B2 https://patents.google.com/patent/US8507200B2/en?q=mirkin&q=nanoflare

On 2015 Sep 28, George McNamara commented:

I posted this on PubPeer, https://pubpeer.com/publications/25CC01C366B9593D1686A78B52461F#fb36935

The Briley et al 2015 paper is deficient in methods - what is the length of the new product? what are the design criteria for specificity? how are the spherical nucleic acids constructed? Is there a mechanism by which the flare gets kicked off the SNA? I suggest PNAS explicitly require self contained full methods and materials in manuscripts they accept. The details can be in the supplemental file, and can both provide full details and cite -- or even quote -- earlier work.

The Briley COI statement states: "The authors declare no conflict of interest.". The authors and their University previously commercialized NanoFlare/SmartFlare - is PNAS sure they have not submitted patent applications for Sticky-Flare and intent to make money from it = financial interest. I am fine with commercialization of products, but if this is an advertisement for a future product, the authors should be honest in their COI an PNAS should mark the paper as an advertisement.

Citation for commercialization: "NanoFlares have been very useful for researchers that operate in the arena of quantifying gene expression. AuraSense, Inc., a biotechnology company that licensed the NanoFlare technology from Northwestern University, and EMD-Millipore, another biotech company, have commercialized NanoFlares. There are now more than 1,700 commercial forms of NanoFlares sold under the SmartFlare name in more than 230 countries." http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2015/07/new-tool-for-investigating-rna-gone-awry.html#sthash.GwI4hbRx.dpuf

One of their patents is US8507200B2 https://patents.google.com/patent/US8507200B2/en?q=mirkin&q=nanoflare

On 2015 Nov 17, Raphael Levy commented:

David Mason and myself submitted a letter to the Editor of PNAS regarding that article. It was however deemed not to "contribute significantly to the discussion of this paper" by the editorial board, and therefore publication was declined. I leave it to the readers of PubMed Commons to decide: the letter was published as a PrePrint on bioRxiv. Our article argues that Briley et al own data show that the Sticky-Flare remain in endosome where they get degraded by nucleases (and therefore cannot report on RNA level and localisation).

On 2017 Jun 28, Raphael Levy commented:

A response from Chad Mirkin. Well, nearly: a section of William Briley's PhD which starts with: "Though the endosomal escape of SNA nanostructures such as the Nanoflare and stickyflare is evident based upon their ability to provide sequence-specific information regarding RNA levels and locations within cells, one researcher [That’s me!] has concluded that SNAs cannot escape from endosomes.[75] That researcher is ignoring the many papers now that use such architectures for sequence-specific cell-sorting experiments." More here