A Model for the Emergence of RNA from a Prebiotically Plausible Mixture of Ribonucleotides, Arabinonucleotides, and 2′-Deoxynucleotides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The abiotic synthesis of ribonucleotides is thought to have been an essential step toward the emergence of the RNA world. However, it is likely that the prebiotic synthesis of ribonucleotides was accompanied by the simultaneous synthesis of arabinonucleotides, 2'-deoxyribonucleotides, and other variations on the canonical nucleotides. In order to understand how relatively homogeneous RNA could have emerged from such complex mixtures, we have examined the properties of arabinonucleotides and 2'-deoxyribonucleotides in nonenzymatic template-directed primer extension reactions. We show that nonenzymatic primer extension with activated arabinonucleotides is much less efficient than with activated ribonucleotides, and furthermore that once an arabinonucleotide is incorporated, continued primer extension is strongly inhibited. As previously shown, 2'-deoxyribonucleotides are also less efficiently incorporated in primer extension reactions, but the difference is more modest. Experiments with mixtures of nucleotides suggest that the coexistence of ribo- and arabinonucleotides does not impede the copying of RNA templates. Moreover, chimeric oligoribonucleotides containing 2'-deoxy- or arabinonucleotides are effective templates for RNA synthesis. We propose that the initial genetic polymers were random sequence chimeric oligonucleotides formed by untemplated polymerization, but that template copying chemistry favored RNA synthesis; multiple rounds of replication may have led to pools of oligomers composed mainly of 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".