Rolling-circle and strand-displacement mechanisms for non-enzymatic RNA replication at the time of the origin of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is likely that RNA replication began non-enzymatically, and that polymerases were later selected to speed up the process. We consider replication mechanisms in modern viruses and ask which of these is possible non-enzymatically, using mathematical models and experimental data found in the literature to estimate rates of RNA synthesis and replication. Replication via alternating plus and minus strands is found in some single-stranded RNA viruses. However, if this occurred non-enzymatically it would lead to double-stranded RNA that would not separate. With some form of environmental cycling, such as temperature, salinity, or pH cycling, double-stranded RNA can be melted to form single-stranded RNA, although re-annealing of existing strands would then occur much faster than synthesis of new strands. We show that re-annealing blocks this form of replication at a very low concentration of strands. Other kinds of viruses synthesize linear double strands from single strands and then make new single strands from double strands via strand-displacement. This does not require environmental cycling and is not blocked by re-annealing. However, under non-enzymatic conditions, if strand-displacement occurs from a linear template, we expect the incomplete new strand to be almost always displaced by the tail end of the old strand through toehold-mediated displacement. A third kind of replication in viruses and viroids is rolling-circle replication which occurs via strand-displacement on a circular template. Rolling-circle replication does not require environmental cycling and is not prevented by toehold-mediated displacement. Rolling-circle replication is therefore expected to occur non-enzymatically and is a likely starting point for the evolution of polymerase-catalysed replication.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".