Can Cyanuric Acid and 2,4,6‐Triaminopyrimidine Containing Ribonucleosides be Components of Prebiotic RNA? Insights from QM Calculations and MD Simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a step toward assessing their fitness as pre-RNA nucleobases, we employ DFT and MD simulations to analyze the noncovalent interactions of cyanuric acid (CA) and 2,4,6-triaminopyrimidine (TAP), and the structural properties of the associated ribonucleosides (rNs) and oligonucleotides. Our calculations reveal that the TAP : CA pair has a comparable hydrogen-bond strength to the canonical A : U pair. This strengthens the candidature of CA and TAP as prebiotic nucleobases. Further, the stacking between two canonical nucleobases is stronger than those between TAP or CA and a canonical base, as well as those between two TAP and/or CA, which indicates that enhanced stacking may have served as a driving force for the evolution from prebiotic to canonical nucleobases. Similarities in the DFT-derived anti/syn rotational barriers and MD-derived (anti) glycosidic conformation of the CA and TAP rNs and canonical rNs further substantiate their candidature as pre-RNA components. Greater deglycosylation barriers (as obtained by DFT calculations) for TAP rNs compared to canonical rNs suggest TAP rNs indicate higher resistance to environmental factors, while lower barriers indicate that CA rNs were likely more suitable for less-challenging locations. Finally, the tight packing in narrow CA:TAP-containing helices suggests that the prebiotic polymers were shielded from water, which would aid their evolution into self-replicating systems. Our calculations thus support proposals that CA and TAP can act as nucleobases of pre-RNA.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".