Investigation of the Catalytic Mechanism of a Synthetic DNAzyme with Protein-like Functionality: An RNaseA Mimic?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The protein enzyme ribonuclease A (RNaseA) cleaves RNA with catalytic perfection, although with little sequence specificity, by a divalent metal ion (M(2+))-independent mechanism in which a pair of imidazoles provides general acid and base catalysis, while a cationic amine provides electrostatic stabilization of the transition state. Synthetic imitation of this remarkable organo-catalyst ("RNaseA mimicry") has been a longstanding goal in biomimetic chemistry. The 9(25)-11 DNAzyme contains synthetically modified nucleotides presenting both imidazole and cationic amine side chains, and catalyzes RNA cleavage with turnover in the absence of M(2+) similarly to RNaseA. Nevertheless, the catalytic roles, if any, of the "protein-like" functional groups have not been defined, and hence the question remains whether 9(25)-11 engages any of these functionalities to mimic aspects of the mechanism of RNaseA. To address this question, we report a mechanistic investigation of 9(25)-11 catalysis wherein we have employed a variety of experiments, such as DNAzyme functional group deletion, mechanism-based affinity labeling, and bridging and nonbridging phosphorothioate substitution of the scissile phosphate. Several striking parallels exist between the results presented here for 9(25)-11 and the results of analogous experiments applied previously to RNaseA. Specifically, our results implicate two particular imidazoles in general acid and base catalysis and suggest that a specific cationic amine stabilizes the transition state via diastereoselective interaction with the scissile phosphate. Overall, 9(25)-11 appears to meet the minimal criteria of an RNaseA mimic; this demonstrates how added synthetic functionality can expand the mechanistic repertoire available to a synthetic DNA-based catalyst.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".