Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Patterning programmable spin arrays on DNA origami for quantum technologies

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read DNA origami patterns molecular spin arrays on diamond, and NV centers verify them through a linear relaxation signal.

desk verdict A solid proof-of-principle that DNA origami can functionalize diamond with spins and that NV relaxometry reads out the engineered density linearly, but the 'programmable arrays' claim outruns the evidence: only density, not spacing, is directly measured, and the quantitative calibration leans on an unverified stoichiometry assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.10760 v1 pith:JB2JFRPI submitted 2025-09-13 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.bio-ph

Zhiran Zhang , Taylor Morrison , Lillian Hughes , Weijie Wu , Ruiyao Liu , Dolev Bluvstein , Norman Yao , Deborah Fygenson
show 1 more author
Ania C. Bleszynski Jayich
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hallphysics.bio-ph
keywords DNAorigamiNVcentersGd3+spinsT1relaxometryspinpatterningquantumsensingdiamondsurfacefunctionalizationnanoscaleassembly
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to establish that DNA origami—a self-assembled DNA breadboard—can deterministically arrange molecular spins on a diamond surface without degrading the shallow nitrogen-vacancy (NV) sensors underneath, and that those sensors can quantitatively read out the patterned spins. It shows that the NV relaxation rate increases linearly with the engineered Gd3+ surface density across eight distinct origami designs, with a Pearson correlation of 0.958, matching Monte Carlo simulations. If correct, this provides a bottom-up route to positioning spins with nanometer precision for quantum sensing and many-body quantum simulation, and it preserves enough NV sensitivity to detect fewer than one Gd3+ spin per sensing volume.

What carries the argument

The central object is the triangular DNA origami (~130 nm side length) carrying 204 programmable single-stranded DNA binding sites on one face, each of which can be hybridized to a strand functionalized with 0–4 Gd-DOTA chelates via click chemistry. The argument is carried by NV T1 relaxometry: Gd3+ (electronic spin S = 7/2 with fast gigahertz dynamics) generates broadband magnetic noise at the NV transition frequency, and the NV relaxation rate follows a Lorentzian spectral-density formula with a 1/r6 distance dependence. The linear relationship between engineered σGd and measured 1/T1 is the mechanism that validates the origami as a programmable spin-patterning platform.

What would settle it

Measure the actual Gd3+ content per origami (for example, by bulk EPR spin counting or inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry of the labeled origami solution) and compare it with the engineered σGd used in Figure 4; if the labeling efficiency is not 100%, or if AFM shows tilted or wrinkled origami, the linear slope and the extracted correlation time would shift, showing that the relaxation signal does not simply report the designed density.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper demonstrates that depositing DNA origami on diamond leaves shallow NV centers essentially undisturbed: coherence times, charge state, photoluminescence, and the local spin environment measured by DEER spectroscopy are all preserved. By attaching Gd-DOTA spin labels to programmable binding sites on the triangular origami, the authors then show that NV T1 relaxation drops sharply (from about 1.9 ms to 88 microseconds) and that the measured relaxation rate 1/T1 scales linearly with the engineered Gd3+ surface density σGd = Nb·M·Cs/A. Fitting the data with a Lorentzian noise model yields a Gd3+ correlation time of 0.18 ± 0.03 ns, consistent with literature values. This establishes prog

Load-bearing premise

The linear calibration assumes that every occupied binding site carries exactly M Gd3+ ions after click chemistry and hybridization, and that the origami lies flat at a uniform height of 1–2 nm above the NV ensemble; neither the per-site stoichiometry nor the flat geometry is directly measured.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DNA origami can serve as a non-perturbative surface functionalization layer for diamond quantum sensors, preserving NV coherence and charge stability.
  • NV T1 relaxometry can quantitatively report the engineered density of molecular spins, with sensitivity to fewer than one Gd3+ per NV sensing volume.
  • Independent control over binding-site occupancy, spins per site, and surface coverage allows programming of both spin density and spatial geometry on the nanoscale.
  • The fitted Gd3+ correlation time from NV relaxation data agrees with literature values, supporting the quantitative model linking spin density to relaxation rate.
  • Numerical simulations indicate that molecular spin arrays patterned by origami at ~20 nm spacing can generate metrologically useful spin squeezing, even with partial filling and ~2 nm positional disorder, whereas random placement cannot.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the calibration is robust, NV T1 relaxometry could serve as a non-destructive assay for origami coverage and labeling efficiency, since deviations from linearity would flag incomplete click chemistry, aggregation, or non-uniform deposition.
  • Because the approach is agnostic to spin species, it could be extended to coherent molecular qubits such as trityl radicals or endohedral fullerenes, potentially enabling studies of coherent dipolar networks rather than only relaxation-based sensing.
  • A testable extension is to use structure-switching aptamers: if target-protein binding displaces Gd-labeled aptamers from the origami, the NV T1 change could enable label-free, multiplexed proteomics on a diamond microarray.
  • The simulation results suggest that if filling fraction and positional disorder can be controlled in practice, room-temperature spin squeezing in ordered molecular arrays is a plausible next milestone, a capability other nanoscale placement methods have not demonstrated.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a hybrid platform in which triangular DNA origami carrying Gd3+ spin labels is deposited on a diamond surface containing a shallow NV ensemble. It claims that unlabeled origami preserves NV coherence, charge stability, and the native spin environment, and that Gd-labeled origami produces an NV T1 relaxation rate that increases linearly with the engineered Gd3+ surface density σGd = Nb·M·Cs/A (Eq. 2), with Pearson coefficient r_P = 0.958 across eight configurations. Monte Carlo simulations using Eq. (1) reproduce the linear slope by fitting the Gd correlation time τc. The paper also presents simulations of proteomics assays and spin squeezing in ordered arrays as future applications.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a valuable proof-of-principle: it combines DNA-origami surface functionalization with shallow NV quantum sensors, shows that the functionalization does not degrade NV coherence, and demonstrates programmable control of the density of surface-anchored spins. The direct measurements of T2 under dynamical decoupling, DEER spectra before/after origami, EPR confirmation of Gd3+, and the linear density-relaxation correlation are concrete strengths. The platform could enable future work on ordered molecular spin arrays for quantum sensing and many-body physics. However, the quantitative density calibration and the claim of nanoscale spacing control are not fully supported by the present data.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (2); Methods VI.2.2] The x-axis of Fig. 4a is σGd = Nb·M·Cs/A, where M is taken as the number of octadiynyl-dU substitutions on each label strand. The manuscript reports that the Gd-labeled ssDNA was 'verified' by LC-MS, but no click-conversion efficiency or average number of Gd-DOTA adducts per strand is given. If click labeling is incomplete or M-dependent, the x-axis is nonlinearly distorted and the observed r_P = 0.958 could partly reflect the nominal product Nb·M·Cs rather than a true linear response to the physical Gd density. This directly affects the claim that the signal 'quantitatively reflects' the engineered spin density and the NGd axis in Fig. 4a. Please provide an independent calibration of the average Gd per binding site (e.g., ICP-MS, EPR spin counting, or a direct assay of click conversion) or present data that isolate the M dependence at fixed Nb and Cs.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (1) and Fig. 4a simulation] The simulation's slope is matched by fitting a single free parameter, τc = 0.18±0.03 ns. Since the relaxation scales as r^-6, the assumed uniform 1–2 nm standoff of the origami above the diamond is as important as the density. AFM coverage is defined with a 1 nm height threshold (Methods VI.3) and does not characterize the height distribution of the Gd layer. Thus the fitted τc can absorb both a density calibration error and an error in the standoff, so the numerical agreement does not independently validate the density axis. The linear scaling is a direct experimental observation and is convincing, but the 'quantitative' agreement should be reframed as consistency under an adjustable parameter. Independent measurement of τc or of the height distribution would strengthen the claim.
  3. [Section III, Fig. 4a; Abstract and Introduction] The claim that NVs are 'sensitive to less than 1 Gd3+ per sensing volume' is an extrapolation from the average linear relation to NGd < 1; no data at such low densities are shown, and the NGd axis is computed from the assumed σGd calibration. In addition, the measurement is performed on an ensemble of NVs in a ~300 nm spot, not on a single NV with a single Gd spin. The wording 'single spin sensitivity' in the abstract and introduction is therefore stronger than what the experiment demonstrates. Please either provide sparse-dilution data or rephrase the claim as an extrapolated sensitivity estimate.
  4. [Section III and Abstract] The abstract states that DNA origami controls the 'spacing' of Gd3+ spins and that this is 'verified' by the linear relaxation-density relationship. However, the measured quantity 1/T1 depends on the average surface density of Gd3+; a random arrangement of the same areal density would produce a similar linear scaling. The manuscript itself acknowledges in Section III that the 'underlying control over spin spacing ... is latent in these measurements.' Thus the data demonstrate programmable density control, but not direct, spatially resolved control of spin spacing. The title and abstract should be tempered, or direct evidence of ordering (e.g., single-NV detection of isolated patterned spins, or a pair-correlation measurement) should be supplied.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Fig. 4 caption/main text] The sentence 'as shown on the top axis of Fig. 3a' appears to be a cross-reference error; the top axis with NGd is in Fig. 4a.
  2. [Methods VI.2.2] The notation '5M µL of 100 mM Gd-DOTA (ratio=5M)' is confusing; please clarify that M is the number of modified bases and write the volume as, e.g., '5×M µL' or similar.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] Typo: 'subwavelengnth' should be 'subwavelength'.
  4. [Throughout] Minor formatting: 'NVT1', 'NVT2', and 'T1' are used inconsistently; use consistent notation such as 'NV T1' or 'NV $T_1$'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central T1-vs-density linearity is a direct experimental observation, and the simulation's τc fit is transparent and externally anchored.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the measured linear dependence of NV relaxation rate 1/T1 on the engineered Gd3+ surface density σGd = Nb·M·Cs/A (Eq. 2). This is an empirical correlation obtained from independent measurements: 1/T1 is measured by NV relaxometry, while σGd is constructed from the DNA design parameters (Nb, M) and AFM-derived coverage (Cs). The x-axis is not derived from the T1 data, so the linearity does not reduce by construction to a fitted parameter. The Monte Carlo simulation uses Eq. 1 with a fixed functional form, and the slope is set by a single fitted correlation time τc; the paper explicitly states this ('the slope is solely determined by τc; the best fit gives τc = 0.18±0.03 ns') and notes consistency with literature values, so the simulation is a calibrated model rather than an independent prediction being passed off as such. The sensitivity claim (<1 Gd per sensing volume) is a model-dependent rescaling of the same data, but it is not presented as a separately predicted observable. Self-citations appear in the speculative squeezing/proteomics discussion and in methodological references, but none is load-bearing for the main experimental result: the coherence preservation (Section II) and linear relaxometry (Section III) stand on direct measurements and established external DEER/T1 methods. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggling, or definitional equivalence was found. The main quantitative caveat—unverified click stoichiometry and flat-origami height—affects the absolute calibration of the x-axis but does not make the observed linear trend circular; even a constant or M-dependent labeling-efficiency offset would leave the empirical linearity as a real measurement, while shifting the inferred τc. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and the central claim is not forced by its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experimental result (linear density response) is grounded in standard NV relaxometry. The main loaded assumptions are the unverified labeling stoichiometry, the assumed flat origami geometry, and the fitted τc, which affect the quantitative interpretation more than the qualitative linearity.

free parameters (4)
  • Gd3+ correlation time τc = 0.18 ± 0.03 ns
    Fitted to match the slope of the simulated 1/T1 vs σGd to the measured data; not directly measured here, though consistent with literature values.
  • Intrinsic NV relaxation rate Ω' = 1/1.9 ms ≈ 0.53 kHz
    Measured from pristine sample and used as background in Eq. 1.
  • Gd3+ height above diamond surface = 1-2 nm (assumed)
    Based on origami geometry and DNA length; not directly measured. Affects the r^-6 scaling in Eq. 1.
  • Stretch exponent n = 0.83(7) pristine, 0.75(4) with Gd
    Fitted to the stretched exponential decay curves; influences T1 extraction but not the central linearity claim.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math NV relaxation due to Gd3+ follows a Lorentzian noise spectrum as in Eq. 1
    Standard model for T1 relaxometry, cited from prior work [57-59].
  • domain assumption Gd3+ spins are immobilized at the origami binding sites and do not diffuse during the measurement
    Required for the static geometry used in the simulation; not directly verified on the surface.
  • domain assumption Origami forms a uniform flat monolayer with AFM-measured coverage Cs
    AFM measures coverage, but flatness and uniform height are assumed; the deposition and drying may create variations.
  • domain assumption NV depth distribution is described by SRIM simulations for 2.5 keV nitrogen implantation
    Used to compute the conversion from σGd to NGd per sensing volume; not directly measured.
  • domain assumption Click chemistry and hybridization place exactly M Gd3+ per occupied binding site
    No direct measurement of labeling efficiency is reported; the paper assumes the engineered stoichiometry.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Patterning programmable spin arrays on DNA origami for quantum technologies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JB2JFRPI

@misc{pith2026250910760,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Patterning programmable spin arrays on DNA origami for quantum technologies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JB2JFRPI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10760}
}
abstract

The controlled assembly of solid-state spins with nanoscale spatial precision is an outstanding challenge for quantum technology. Here, we combine DNA-based patterning with nitrogen-vacancy (NV) ensemble quantum sensors in diamond to form and sense programmable 2D arrays of spins. We use DNA origami to control the spacing of chelated Gd$^{3+}$ spins, as verified by the observed linear relationship between proximal NVs' relaxation rate, $1/T_1$, and the engineered number of Gd$^{3+}$ spins per origami unit. We further show that DNA origami provides a robust way of functionalizing the diamond surface with spins as it preserves the charge state and spin coherence of proximal, shallow NV centers. Our work enables the formation and interrogation of ordered, strongly interacting spin networks with applications in quantum sensing and quantum simulation. We quantitatively discuss the prospects of entanglement-enhanced metrology and high-throughput proteomics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10760 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 29 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Quantum Sensors for Chemistry and Materials Science

    quant-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

    OPMs and NV centers form complementary quantum sensor platforms that overcome classical limits in sensitivity, resolution, and throughput for chemistry and materials science.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Childress and R

    L. Childress and R. Hanson, MRS Bulletin38, 134 (2013)

    2013

  2. [2]

    C. E. Bradley, J. Randall, M. H. Abobeih, R. C. Berrevoets, M. J. Degen, M. A. Bakker, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, and T. H. Taminiau, Phys. Rev. X9, 031045 (2019)

    2019

  3. [3]

    Zaiser, T

    S. Zaiser, T. Rendler, I. Jakobi, T. Wolf, S.-Y. Lee, S. Wagner, V. Bergholm, T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, P. Neu- mann, and J. Wrachtrup, Nature Communications7, 12279 (2016)

    2016

  4. [4]

    Pfender, N

    M. Pfender, N. Aslam, H. Sumiya, S. Onoda, P. Neu- mann, J. Isoya, C. A. Meriles, and J. Wrachtrup, Nature Communications8, 834 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    J. Cai, A. Retzker, F. Jelezko, and M. B. Plenio, Nature Physics9, 168 (2013)

    2013

  6. [6]

    Block, B

    M. Block, B. Ye, B. Roberts, S. Chern, W. Wu, Z. Wang, L. Pollet, E. J. Davis, B. I. Halperin, and N. Y. Yao, Nature Physics20, 1575 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    W. Wu, E. J. Davis, L. B. Hughes, B. Ye, Z. Wang, D. Kufel, T. Ono, S. A. Meynell, M. Block, C. Liu, H. Yang, A. C. B. Jayich, and N. Y. Yao, Spin squeezing in an ensemble of nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond (2025), version Number: 1

    2025

  8. [8]

    H. Gao, L. S. Martin, L. B. Hughes, N. T. Leitao, P. Put, H. Zhou, N. U. Koyluoglu, S. A. Meynell, A. C. B. Jayich, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Signal amplification in a solid- state quantum sensor via asymmetric time-reversal of many-body dynamics (2025), version Number: 1

    2025

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    A. O. Sushkov, I. Lovchinsky, N. Chisholm, R. L. Walsworth, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 197601 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Zheng, A

    T.-X. Zheng, A. Li, J. Rosen, S. Zhou, M. Koppenh¨ ofer, Z. Ma, F. T. Chong, A. A. Clerk, L. Jiang, and P. C. Maurer, npj Quantum Information8, 150 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Zhang, M

    Z. Zhang, M. Joos, D. Bluvstein, Y. Lyu, and A. C. Bleszynski Jayich, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, L031004 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Rovny, Z

    J. Rovny, Z. Yuan, M. Fitzpatrick, A. I. Abdalla, L. Futamura, C. Fox, M. C. Cambria, S. Kolkowitz, and N. P. de Leon, Science378, 1301 (2022), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.ade9858

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Cheng, Z

    K.-H. Cheng, Z. Kazi, J. Rovny, B. Zhang, L. S. Nassar, J. D. Thompson, and N. P. De Leon, Physical Review X 15, 031014 (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    M. Wang, H. Sun, X. Ye, P. Yu, H. Liu, J. Zhou, P. Wang, F. Shi, Y. Wang, and J. Du, Science Advances8, eabn9573 (2022), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.abn9573

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    A. Enke, N. Raatz, J. Meijer, and R. Wunderlich, New Journal of Physics27, 023016 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    S. Kim, P. London, D. Yang, L. Hughes, J. Ahlers, S. Meynell, W. Mitchell, K. Mukherjee, and A. C. B. Jayich, Scalable, nanoscale positioning of highly coher- ent color centers in prefabricated diamond nanostruc- tures (2025), arXiv:2502.01198 [quant-ph]

    2025

  9. [17]

    C. A. McLellan, B. A. Myers, S. Kraemer, K. Ohno, D. D. Awschalom, and A. C. Bleszynski Jayich, Nano Letters16, 2450 (2016), pMID: 27010642, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b05304

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Vujevi´ c, B

    L. Vujevi´ c, B. Karadeniz, N. Cindro, A. Krajnc, G. Mali, M. Mazaj, S. M. Avdoshenko, A. A. Popov, D. ˇZili´ c, K. Uˇ zarevi´ c, and M. Kveder, Chemical Science14, 9389 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    D. M. Eigler and E. K. Schweizer, Nature344, 524 (1990)

    1990

  12. [20]

    P. W. K. Rothemund, Nature440, 297 (2006)

    2006

  13. [21]

    S. M. Douglas, H. Dietz, T. Liedl, B. H¨ ogberg, F. Graf, and W. M. Shih, Nature459, 414 (2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    Dietz, S

    H. Dietz, S. M. Douglas, and W. M. Shih, Science325, 725 (2009), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1174251

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    G. A. Knappe, E.-C. Wamhoff, and M. Bathe, Nature Reviews Materials8, 123 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    P. Zhan, A. Peil, Q. Jiang, D. Wang, S. Mousavi, Q. Xiong, Q. Shen, Y. Shang, B. Ding, C. Lin, Y. Ke, and N. Liu, Chemical Reviews123, 3976 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Gopinath, E

    A. Gopinath, E. Miyazono, A. Faraon, and P. W. K. Rothemund, Nature535, 401 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Gopinath, C

    A. Gopinath, C. Thachuk, A. Mitskovets, H. A. Atwater, D. Kirkpatrick, and P. W. K. Rothemund, Science371, eabd6179 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    I. V. Martynenko, E. Erber, V. Ruider, M. Dass, G. Pos- njak, X. Yin, P. Altpeter, and T. Liedl, Nature Nanotech- nology18, 1456 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Gopinath and P

    A. Gopinath and P. W. K. Rothemund, ACS Nano8, 12030 (2014), pMID: 25412345, https://doi.org/10.1021/nn506014s

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    R. M. Shetty, S. R. Brady, P. W. K. Rothemund, R. F. Hariadi, and A. Gopinath, ACS Nano15, 11441 (2021), pMID: 34228915

    2021

  22. [30]

    Y. Ke, S. M. Douglas, M. Liu, J. Sharma, A. Cheng, A. Leung, Y. Liu, W. M. Shih, and H. Yan, Journal of the American Chemical Society131, 15903 (2009), pMID: 19807088, https://doi.org/10.1021/ja906381y

    2009 doi

  23. [31]

    Y. Tian, T. Wang, W. Liu, H. L. Xin, H. Li, Y. Ke, W. M. Shih, and O. Gang, Nature Nanotechnology10, 637 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    Ketterer, A

    P. Ketterer, A. N. Ananth, D. S. Laman Trip, A. Mishra, E. Bertosin, M. Ganji, J. van der Torre, P. Onck, H. Di- etz, and C. Dekker, Nature Communications9, 902 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    V. S. Perunicic, L. T. Hall, D. A. Simpson, C. D. Hill, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Phys. Rev. B89, 054432 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Lovchinsky, A

    I. Lovchinsky, A. O. Sushkov, E. Urbach, N. P. de Leon, S. Choi, K. D. Greve, R. Evans, R. Gertner, E. Bersin, C. M¨ uller, L. McGuinness, F. Jelezko, R. L. Walsworth, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Science351, 836 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    M. R. Dunn, R. M. Jimenez, and J. C. Chaput, Nature Reviews Chemistry1, 0076 (2017). 10

    2017

  29. [37]

    S. Lu, C. R. Fowler, B. Ream, S. M. Waugh, T. M. Rus- sell, J. C. Rohloff, L. Gold, J. P. Cleveland, and S. Stoll, ACS Sensors8, 2219 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Wolfowicz, F

    G. Wolfowicz, F. J. Heremans, C. P. Anderson, S. Kanai, H. Seo, A. Gali, G. Galli, and D. D. Awschalom, Nature Reviews Materials6, 906 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Janitz, K

    E. Janitz, K. Herb, L. A. V¨ olker, W. S. Huxter, C. L. Degen, and J. M. Abendroth, J. Mater. Chem. C10, 13533 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Bornet, G

    G. Bornet, G. Emperauger, C. Chen, B. Ye, M. Block, M. Bintz, J. A. Boyd, D. Barredo, T. Comparin, F. Mezzacapo, T. Roscilde, T. Lahaye, N. Y. Yao, and A. Browaeys, Nature621, 728 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Kobrin, T

    B. Kobrin, T. Schuster, M. Block, W. Wu, B. Mitchell, E. Davis, and N. Y. Yao, A universal protocol for quantum-enhanced sensing via information scrambling (2024), arXiv:2411.12794 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Perczel, J

    J. Perczel, J. Borregaard, D. E. Chang, H. Pichler, S. F. Yelin, P. Zoller, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 023603 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    D. Wang, H. Kelkar, D. Martin-Cano, D. Rattenbacher, A. Shkarin, T. Utikal, S. G¨ otzinger, and V. Sandoghdar, Nature Physics15, 483 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    J. Rui, D. Wei, A. Rubio-Abadal, S. Hollerith, J. Zeiher, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, C. Gross, and I. Bloch, Nature 583, 369 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Srakaew, P

    K. Srakaew, P. Weckesser, S. Hollerith, D. Wei, D. Adler, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Nature Physics19, 714 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Y. Kim, A. Lanuza, and D. Schneble, Nature Physics 10.1038/s41567-024-02676-w (2024)

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    Bluvstein, Z

    D. Bluvstein, Z. Zhang, C. A. McLellan, N. R. Williams, and A. C. Bleszynski Jayich, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 146804 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Rosskopf, A

    T. Rosskopf, A. Dussaux, K. Ohashi, M. Loretz, R. Schirhagl, H. Watanabe, S. Shikata, K. M. Itoh, and C. L. Degen, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 147602 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    Sangtawesin, B

    S. Sangtawesin, B. L. Dwyer, S. Srinivasan, J. J. Allred, L. V. H. Rodgers, K. De Greve, A. Stacey, N. Dontschuk, K. M. O’Donnell, D. Hu, D. A. Evans, C. Jaye, D. A. Fischer, M. L. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, H. Park, M. D. Lukin, and N. P. de Leon, Phys. Rev. X9, 031052 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    M. Xie, X. Yu, L. V. H. Rodgers, D. Xu, I. Chi-Dur´ an, A. Toros, N. Quack, N. P. de Leon, and P. C. Maurer, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119, e2114186119 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    L. V. H. Rodgers, S. T. Nguyen, J. H. Cox, K. Zervas, Z. Yuan, S. Sangtawesin, A. Stacey, C. Jaye, C. Wei- land, A. Pershin, A. Gali, L. Thomsen, S. A. Meynell, L. B. Hughes, A. C. B. Jayich, X. Gui, R. J. Cava, R. R. Knowles, and N. P. De Leon, Proceedings of the National Aca...

    2024

  44. [52]

    H. J. Mamin, M. H. Sherwood, and D. Rugar, Phys. Rev. B86, 195422 (2012)

    2012

  45. [53]

    Caravan, J

    P. Caravan, J. J. Ellison, T. J. McMurry, and R. B. Lauf- fer, Chemical Reviews99, 2293 (1999), pMID: 11749483

    1999

  46. [54]

    Borel, E

    A. Borel, E. Toth, L. Helm, A. Janossy, and A. E. Mer- bach, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.2, 1311 (2000)

    2000

  47. [55]

    S. Rast, A. Borel, L. Helm, E. Belorizky, P. H. Fries, and A. E. Merbach, Journal of the American Chemical Society123, 2637 (2001)

    2001

  48. [56]

    J. A. Clayton, K. Keller, M. Qi, J. Wegner, V. Koch, H. Hintz, A. Godt, S. Han, G. Jeschke, M. S. Sherwin, and M. Yulikov, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.20, 10470 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    C. P. Slichter, Spin-lattice relaxation and motional nar- rowing of resonance lines, inPrinciples of Magnetic Res- onance(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,

  50. [58]

    R. J. Schoelkopf, A. A. Clerk, S. M. Girvin, K. W. Lehn- ert, and M. H. Devoret, Qubits as spectrometers of quan- tum noise, inQuantum Noise in Mesoscopic Physics, edited by Y. V. Nazarov (Springer Netherlands, Dor- drecht, 2003) pp. 175–203

    2003

  51. [59]

    Tetienne, T

    J.-P. Tetienne, T. Hingant, L. Rondin, A. Cavaill` es, L. Mayer, G. Dantelle, T. Gacoin, J. Wrachtrup, J.-F. Roch, and V. Jacques, Phys. Rev. B87, 235436 (2013)

    2013

  52. [60]

    B. A. Myers, A. Ariyaratne, and A. C. B. Jayich, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 197201 (2017)

    2017

  53. [61]

    Bluvstein, Z

    D. Bluvstein, Z. Zhang, and A. C. Bleszynski Jayich, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 076101 (2019)

    2019

  54. [62]

    J. Choi, S. Choi, G. Kucsko, P. C. Maurer, B. J. Shields, H. Sumiya, S. Onoda, J. Isoya, E. Demler, F. Jelezko, N. Y. Yao, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 093601 (2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

    S. Rast, P. H. Fries, E. Belorizky, A. Borel, L. Helm, and A. E. Merbach, The Journal of Chemical Physics115, 7554 (2001)

    2001

  56. [64]

    Li and T

    H. Li and T. J. Meade, Journal of the American Chemical Society141, 17025 (2019), pMID: 31593630, https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.9b09149

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    Chi-Dur´ an, E

    I. Chi-Dur´ an, E. J. Villafranca, D. Dang, R. Rosiles, C. T. Cheung, Z. Zhang, J. P. Cleveland, and P. C. Mau- rer, Quantum biosensing on a multiplexed functionalized diamond microarray (2025), arXiv:2508.13193 [physics]

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Kitagawa and M

    M. Kitagawa and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. A47, 5138 (1993)

    1993

  59. [67]

    Schachenmayer, A

    J. Schachenmayer, A. Pikovski, and A. M. Rey, Phys. Rev. X5, 011022 (2015)

    2015

  60. [68]

    M. A. Perlin, C. Qu, and A. M. Rey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 223401 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    C. B. Wilson, M. Qi, S. Han, and M. S. Sherwin, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters14, 10578 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    Pinto, D

    D. Pinto, D. Paone, B. Kern, T. Dierker, R. Wiec- zorek, A. Singha, D. Dasari, A. Finkler, W. Harneit, J. Wrachtrup, and K. Kern, Nature Communications11, 6405 (2020)

    2020

  63. [71]

    S. L. Bayliss, D. W. Laorenza, P. J. Mintun, B. D. Kovos, D. E. Freedman, and D. D. Awschalom, Science370, 1309 (2020), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abb9352

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    J. S. Feder, B. S. Soloway, S. Verma, Z. Z. Geng, S. Wang, B. B. Kifle, E. G. Riendeau, Y. Tsaturyan, L. R. Weiss, M. Xie, J. Huang, A. Esser-Kahn, L. Gagliardi, D. D. Awschalom, and P. C. Maurer, Nature645, 73 (2025)

    2025

  65. [73]

    Mainwood, Phys

    A. Mainwood, Phys. Rev. B49, 7934 (1994)

    1994

  66. [74]

    De´ ak, B

    P. De´ ak, B. Aradi, M. Kaviani, T. Frauenheim, and A. Gali, Phys. Rev. B89, 075203 (2014)

    2014

  67. [75]

    T. R. Eichhorn, C. A. McLellan, and A. C. Bleszyn- ski Jayich, Phys. Rev. Mater.3, 113802 (2019)

    2019

  68. [76]

    L. B. Hughes, Z. Zhang, C. Jin, S. A. Meynell, B. Ye, W. Wu, Z. Wang, E. J. Davis, T. E. Mates, N. Y. Yao, K. Mukherjee, and A. C. Bleszynski Jayich, APL Mate- rials11, 021101 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.