Dynamics of Nucleotide Incorporation: Snapshots Revealed by 2-Aminopurine Fluorescence Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Formation of a noncanonical base pair between dFTP, a dTTP analogue that cannot form H bonds, and the fluorescent base analogue 2-aminopurine (2AP) was studied in order to discover how the bacteriophage T4 DNA polymerase selects nucleotides with high accuracy. Changes in 2AP fluorescence intensity provided a spectroscopic reporter of the nucleotide binding reactions, which were combined with rapid-quench, pre-steady-state reactions to measure product formation. These studies supported and extended previous findings that the T4 DNA polymerase binds nucleotides in multiple steps with increasing selectivity. With 2AP in the template position, initial dTTP binding was rapid but selective: K(d(dTTP)) (first step) = 31 microM; K(d(dCTP)) (first step) approximately 3 mM. In studies with dFTP, this step was revealed to have two components: formation of an initial preinsertion complex in which H bonds between bases in the newly forming base pair were not essential, which was followed by formation of a final preinsertion complex in which H bonds assisted. The second nucleotide binding step was characterized by increased discrimination against dTTP binding opposite template 2AP, K(d) (second step) = 367 microM, and additional conformational changes were detected in ternary enzyme-DNA-dTTP complexes, as expected for forming closed complexes. We demonstrate here that the second binding step occurs before formation of the phosphodiester bond. Thus, the high fidelity of nucleotide insertion by T4 DNA polymerase is accomplished by the sequential application of selectivity in first forming accurate preinsertion complexes, and then additional conformational changes are applied that further increase discrimination against incorrect nucleotides.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".