Oligoribonucleotide Synthesis: The Silyl-Phosphoramidite Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1968, one of us began a quest to develop a general method for the synthesis of RNA sequences. The major problems associated with the chemical assembly of ribonucleotide chains were already well established. RNA sequences are very sensitive to chemical and enzymatic degradation. Consequently, all procedures involved in the assembly of RNA chains must respect the delicacy of the assembled chain. Further, the assembly of RNA sequences is complicated by the presence of a 2′-hydroxyl group in the monomeric ribonucleosides that form the starting materials for the chemical assembly of RNA chains. The 2′-hydroxyl must be blocked (or “protected”) with a protecting group that remains stable throughout the many steps of a chain assembly yet that is labile enough to be removed at the end of chain assembly without leading to cleavage of the assembled chain. Finally, it was clear even in the late 1960s that in order to be convincing the method must be capable of producing an RNA chain of the length of a tRNA in order to overcome the inherent skepticism of chemical synthesis of RNA. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
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".