Apr 26, 2026
DNA Provenance Passport
Tammy Sisodiya, Nourelden Rihan, John Adeyemo Adedeji
DNA Provenance Passport is a “code-signing for DNA” prototype that lets synthesis providers verify whether a DNA design came from a trusted researcher, remained unchanged after signing, and should proceed to normal screening or be routed for review.
You identified a specific challenge for biosecurity and describe an innovative solution - effectively modernising customer screening approaches, rather than relying solely on order screening. This is a genuinely interesting and innovative approach. I particularly appreciated you consideration of sensitivities over the confidentiality of proprietary sequences as well as the application to benchtop synthesis devices. Both are particularly innovative and address real world challenges. I would like to have seen more evidence to support the claims of codon shifting/ optimization effectively circumventing sequence homology approaches. I think using tools to engineer proteins to retain function but with a significantly different sequence have been demonstrated in various publications. Key references to these are missing.
Please never ever typeset an entire paper in italics. Literally
half of the submissions I've reviewed were entirely set in italics,
and I suspect it's because everyone was working from a submission
template which used italics to give instructions about what to say
in various sections, and you just inherited that formatting. But you
should be more vigilant; please don't make reviewers' eyeballs bleed. :)
This paper feels like all the hard problems are pushed out of scope.
A variety of [citation needed]:
(a) p.3. "as we demonstrated" where?
(b) "codon optimization can make it fall below threshold" isn't true.
There are screening solutions which look at the AA's and not the
nucleotides and therefore codon optimization doesn't affect them.
(c) You cite SecureDNA but seem to miss that there doesn't
*necessarily* have to be a tradeoff between screening and privacy,
especially for orders which do not contain hazards.
(d) Calling IBBIS's CM "state of the art" requires some citation
backup. There are many screening solutions out there.
On page 4, your "verified attribution" is basically what SecureDNA's
"verified screening" mode does already; this paper is just a
recapitulation of that mode.
You claim to use ECDSA, but give no justification for why that in
particular. DSA in any form, including ECDSA, is *incredibly fragile*
and very easy to get wrong; in particular, reusing any nonce exposes
the key. There are a number of much better choices which do not have
so many sharp edges, so the choice of ECDSA here is curious and
unwise.
You didn't fill out any of the Appendix or (especially!) the "LLM
usage" sections at all. This is both careless and also means that
it's not possible to know how much of this paper was LLM-generated.
You also didn't remove the template instructions from "Code and Data"
and from "References."
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) DNA Provenance Passport
},
author={
Tammy Sisodiya, Nourelden Rihan, John Adeyemo Adedeji
},
date={
4/26/26
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


