Pathogenic CANVAS-causing but not nonpathogenic RFC1 DNA/RNA repeat motifs form quadruplex or triplex structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biallelic expansions of various tandem repeat sequence motifs are possible in RFC1 (replication factor C subunit 1), encoding the DNA replication/repair protein RFC1, yet only certain repeat motifs cause cerebellar ataxia, neuropathy, and vestibular areflexia syndrome (CANVAS). CANVAS presents enigmatic puzzles: The pathogenic path for CANVAS neither is known nor is it understood why some, but not all expanded, motifs are pathogenic. The most common pathogenic repeat is (AAGGG)n•(CCCTT)n, whereas (AAAAG)n•(CTTTT)n is the most common nonpathogenic motif. While both intronic motifs can be expanded and transcribed, only r(AAGGG)n is retained in the mutant RFC1 transcript. We show that only the pathogenic forms unusual nucleic acid structures. Specifically, DNA and RNA of the pathogenic d(AAGGG)4 and r(AAGGG)4 form G-quadruplexes in potassium solution. Nonpathogenic repeats did not form G-quadruplexes. Triple-stranded structures are formed by the pathogenic motifs but not by the nonpathogenic motifs. G- and C-richness of the pathogenic strands favor formation of G•G•G•G-tetrads and protonated C+-G Hoogsteen base pairings, involved in quadruplex and triplex structures, respectively, stabilized by increased hydrogen bonds and pi-stacking interactions relative to A-T Hoogsteen pairs that could form by the nonpathogenic motif. The ligand, TMPyP4, binds the pathogenic quadruplexes. Formation of quadruplexes and triplexes by pathogenic repeats supports toxic-DNA and toxic-RNA modes of pathogenesis at the RFC1 gene and the RFC1 transcript. Our findings with short repeats provide insights into the disease specificity of pathogenic repeat motif sequences and reveal nucleic acid structural features that may be pathogenically involved and targeted therapeutically.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".