Molecular Insights into the Translesion Synthesis of Benzyl-Guanine from Molecular Dynamics Simulations: Structural Evidence of Mutagenic and Nonmutagenic Replication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA can be damaged by many compounds in our environment, and the resulting damaged DNA is commonly replicated by translesion synthesis (TLS) polymerases. Because the mechanism and efficiency of TLS are affected by the type of DNA damage, obtaining information for a variety of DNA adducts is critical. However, there is no structural information for the insertion of a dNTP opposite an O6-dG adduct, which is a particularly harmful class of DNA lesions. We used molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to investigate structural and energetic parameters that dictate preferred dNTP insertion opposite O6-benzyl-guanine (Bz-dG) by DNA polymerase IV, a prototypical TLS polymerase. Specifically, MD simulations were completed on all possible ternary insertion complexes and ternary -1 base deletion complexes with different Bz-dG conformations. Our data suggests that the purines are unlikely to be inserted opposite anti- or syn-Bz-dG, and dTTP is unlikely to be inserted opposite syn-Bz-dG, because of changes in the active site conformation, including critical hydrogen-bonding interactions and/or reaction-ready parameters compared to natural dG replication. In contrast, a preserved active site conformation suggests that dCTP can be inserted opposite either anti- or syn-Bz-dG and dTTP can be inserted opposite anti-Bz-dG. This is the first structural explanation for the experimentally observed preferential insertion of dCTP and misincorporation of dTTP opposite Bz-dG. Furthermore, we provide atomic level insight into why Bz-dG replication does not lead to deletion mutations, which is in contrast with the replication outcomes of other adducts. These findings provide a basis for understanding the replication of related O6-dG adducts.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".