Is this participle phrase dangling?

The golden wattle DNA was sequenced into millions of fragments that were then assembled like a giant jigsaw puzzle, using high performance computers housed in the National Herbarium of Victoria,” says Todd McLay, a postdoctoral fellow at Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria.

This sentence has no real subject because it is written in passive. Is this sentence grammatically wrong? Or is the participle NOT dangling because it might be modifying the omitted real subject (Scientists)? Can participles do that?

Source of the quote: Australian Geographic

Edit: This is what I know. A participial phrase can modify the subject, object or the whole sentence when it becomes the subject.

A. She saw the cat sitting on the fence.

(Here, without a comma, the phrase modifies what is right beside it. (the cat, which is the object). The cat was sitting on the fence, and she saw it.

B. She saw the cat, sitting on the fence.

(Here, the phrase is separated from the object, the cat.) Hence, it means she saw the cat while she was sitting on the fence. It means that the phrase is modifying the subject, she.

C. The cat died, upsetting her.

(Here there is a comma and you might think that the phrase is modifying the subject, the cat, but no. The subject here is the fact that the cat died. So, it is fine. The phrase is still modifying a subject (the situation or the fact that the cat died)

But the sentence in question does not fall into any of the patterns mentioned above.

The DNA was sequenced into fragments that were assembled, using a computer. The phrase 'using a computer' neither modifies the DNA (Sbj) nor the fragments (Obj). Nor the whole sentence. The fact that the DNA was sequenced into fragments cannot use a computer.

Let's change the sentence into something else. (A hypothetical example)

The DNA was sequenced into fragments that were assembled, producing a puddle of goo.

Here, the participial phrase would modify the whole sentence as a subject. Here, the fact that the DNA was sequenced into fragments that were assembled did produce a puddle of goo.

How is this thread different from Can a participle phrase modify a whole sentence or clause?Or they have to stick to a specific word or phrase? and A participle phrase?

The first thread introduces another possibility of participial phrases modifying the main verb. This sort of clears things up. How was the DNA sequenced? By the use of computers. But why is there a comma in the original sentence? If the boy ran home crying, I agree that the boy ran in a crying manner. If the boy ran home, crying, the word 'crying' must be modifying the subject.

In the second thread, the given participial phrases are clearly modifying the subject. Therefore, it is not related to our discussion.

The dog, seizing the man by the collar, dragged him out. (The seizing is done by the dog.)

Flying into the storm, he risked his life and limb. (He is the one who flew into the storm.)

No; it's not a 'dangling' phrase. That means an introductory phrase does not logically match the subject that follows it. There's nothing illogical here.

It seems to me to be a misplaced phrase - that is, it may have been separated from the action it modifies. Currently, it appears to refer to the assembly of the "fragments" rather than the DNA sequencing process, creating an ambiguity rather than something illogical.

There are various ways it could be rewritten to more clearly indicate if these high-performance computers did the sequencing and the assembly processes, or just one or the other.

However, this is reported speech. The writer can only write what the speaker actually said, and it's very difficult to plan such long sentences when speaking extemporaneously.