Possible Ribose Synthesis in Carbonaceous Planetesimals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The origin of life might be sparked by the polymerization of the first RNA molecules in Darwinian ponds during wet-dry cycles. The key life-building block ribose was found in carbonaceous chondrites. Its exogenous delivery onto the Hadean Earth could be a crucial step toward the emergence of the RNA world. Here, we investigate the formation of ribose through a simplified version of the formose reaction inside carbonaceous chondrite parent bodies. Following up on our previous studies regarding nucleobases with the same coupled physico-chemical model, we calculate the abundance of ribose within planetesimals of different sizes and heating histories. We perform laboratory experiments using catalysts present in carbonaceous chondrites to infer the yield of ribose among all pentoses (5Cs) forming during the formose reaction. These laboratory yields are used to tune our theoretical model that can only predict the total abundance of 5Cs. We found that the calculated abundances of ribose were similar to the ones measured in carbonaceous chondrites. We discuss the possibilities of chemical decomposition and preservation of ribose and derived constraints on time and location in planetesimals. In conclusion, the aqueous formose reaction might produce most of the ribose in carbonaceous chondrites. Together with our previous studies on nucleobases, we found that life-building blocks of the RNA world could be synthesized inside parent bodies and later delivered onto the early Earth.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".