Ligand recognition determinants of guanine riboswitches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guanine riboswitches negatively modulate transcription upon guanine binding. The aptamer domain is organized around a three-way junction which forms the ligand binding site. Using currently available 89 guanine aptamer sequences, a consensus secondary structure is deduced and reveals differences from the previously identified aptamer consensus. Three positions are found to display different nucleotide requirements. Using a 2-aminopurine binding assay, we show that variations are allowed depending on the aptamer context. However, changes at position 48 markedly decrease ligand binding in a context-independent fashion. This is consistent with previous observations with the adenine riboswitch in which position 48 was proposed to interact with position 74, which normally base pairs with the ligand. The in vivo transcriptional control of endogenous Bacillus subtilis guanine riboswitches was studied using RT-qPCR assays. The ratio of elongated/terminated transcripts is decreased in presence of a high concentration of guanine but is dependent on the riboswitch analyzed. In general, the aptamer-2AP complex affinity correlates well with the in vivo regulation efficiency of the corresponding riboswitch. These studies suggest that core variations of guanine aptamers are used to produce a spectrum of ligand binding affinities which is used in vivo by host riboswitches to perform gene regulation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".