Mechanisms for differentiation between cognate and near-cognate ligands by purine riboswitches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Riboswitches are elements in the 5'-untranslated region of mRNAs that regulate gene expression by directly interacting with metabolites related to their own gene products. A remarkable feature of this gene regulation mechanism is the high specificity of riboswitches for their cognate ligands. In this study, we used a combination of static and time-resolved NMR-spectroscopic methods to investigate the mechanisms for ligand specificity in purine riboswitches. We investigate the xpt-aptamer domain from a guanine-responsive riboswitch and the mfl-aptamer domain from a 2'-deoxyguanosine-responsive riboswitch. The xpt-aptamer binds the purine nucleobases guanine/hypoxanthine with high affinity, but, unexpectedly, also the nucleoside 2'-deoxyguanosine. On the other hand, the mfl-aptamer is highly specific for its cognate ligand 2'-deoxyguanosine, and does not bind purine ligands. We addressed the question of aptamer`s ligand specificity by real-time NMR spectroscopy. Our studies of ligand binding and subsequently induced aptamer folding revealed that the xpt-aptamer discriminates against non-cognate ligands by enhanced life-times of the cognate complex compared with non-cognate complexes, whereas the mfl-aptamer rejects non-cognate ligands at the level of ligand association, employing a kinetic proofreading mechanism.
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".