MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786550434 · doi:10.1021/acs.accounts.7b00582

DNA’s Encounter with Ultraviolet Light: An Instinct for Self-Preservation?

2018· article· en· W2786550434 on OpenAlexafffund
Adam Barlev, Dipankar Sen

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounts of Chemical Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLight effects on plants
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhotolyasePyrimidine dimerDNAThymineCofactorDeoxyribozymeGuanineChemistryRNADNA repairBiochemistryEnzymeBiologyBiophysicsNucleotideGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Photochemical modification is the major class of environmental damage suffered by DNA, the genetic material of all free-living organisms. Photolyases are enzymes that carry out direct photochemical repair (photoreactivation) of covalent pyrimidine dimers formed in DNA from exposure to ultraviolet light. The discovery of catalytic RNAs in the 1980s led to the "RNA world hypothesis", which posits that early in evolution RNA or a similar polymer served both genetic and catalytic functions. Intrigued by the RNA world hypothesis, we set out to test whether a catalytic RNA (or a surrogate, a catalytic DNA) with photolyase activity could be contemplated. In vitro selection from a random-sequence DNA pool yielded two DNA enzymes (DNAzymes): Sero1C, which requires serotonin as an obligate cofactor, and UV1C, which is cofactor-independent and optimally uses light of 300-310 nm wavelength to repair cyclobutane thymine dimers within a gapped DNA substrate. Both Sero1C and UV1C show multiple turnover kinetics, and UV1C repairs its substrate with a quantum yield of ∼0.05, on the same order as the quantum yields of certain classes of photolyase enzymes. Intensive study of UV1C has revealed that its catalytic core consists of a guanine quadruplex (G-quadruplex) positioned proximally to the bound substrate's thymine dimer. We hypothesize that electron transfer from photoexcited guanines within UV1C's G-quadruplex is responsible for substrate photoreactivation, analogous to electron transfer to pyrimidine dimers within a DNA substrate from photoexcited flavin cofactors located within natural photolyase enzymes. Though the analogy to evolution is necessarily limited, a comparison of the properties of UV1C and Sero1C, which arose out of the same in vitro selection experiment, reveals that although the two DNAzymes comparably accelerate the rate of thymine dimer repair, Sero1C has a substantially broader substrate repertoire, as it can repair many more kinds of pyrimidine dimers than UV1C. Therefore, the co-opting of an amino acid-like cofactor by a nucleic acid enzyme in this case contributes functional versatility rather than a greater rate enhancement. In recent work on UV1C, we have succeeded in shifting its action spectrum from the UVB into the blue region of the spectrum and determined that although it catalyzes both repair and de novo formation of thymine dimers, UV1C is primarily a catalyst for thymine dimer repair. Our work on photolyase DNAzymes has stimulated broader questions about whether analogous, purely nucleotide-based photoreactivation also occurs in double-helical DNA, the dominant form of DNA in living cells. Recently, a number of different groups have reported that this kind of repair is indeed operational in DNA duplexes, i.e., that there exist nucleotide sequences that actively protect, by way of photoreactivation (rather than by simply preventing their formation), pyrimidine dimers located proximal to them. Nucleotide-based photoreactivation thus appears to be a salient, if unanticipated, property of DNA and RNA. The phenomenon also offers pointers in the direction of how in primordial evolution-in an RNA world-early nucleic acids may have protected themselves from structural and functional damage wrought by ultraviolet light.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounts of Chemical ResearchSame topicLight effects on plantsFrench-language works237,207