MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067502946 · doi:10.3390/life5010247

RNA Synthesis by in Vitro Selected Ribozymes for Recreating an RNA World

2015· review· en· W2067502946 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueLife · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOrigins and Evolution of Life
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversidade Federal de Mato Grosso do SulNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsRibozymeRNARNA world hypothesisLigase ribozymeIn vitroBiologyComputational biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The RNA world hypothesis states that during an early stage of life, RNA molecules functioned as genome and as the only genome-encoded catalyst. This hypothesis is supported by several lines of evidence, one of which is the in vitro selection of catalytic RNAs (ribozymes) in the laboratory for a wide range of reactions that might have been used by RNA world organisms. This review focuses on three types of ribozymes that could have been involved in the synthesis of RNA, the core activity in the self-replication of RNA world organisms. These ribozyme classes catalyze nucleoside synthesis, triphosphorylation, and the polymerization of nucleoside triphosphates. The strengths and weaknesses regarding each ribozyme's possible function in a self-replicating RNA network are described, together with the obstacles that need to be overcome before an RNA world organism can be generated in the laboratory.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it