DNA Replication across α-<scp>l</scp>-(3′-2′)-Threofuranosyl Nucleotides Mediated by Human DNA Polymerase η
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide α- l -(3′-2′)-Threofuranosyl nucleic acid (TNA) pairs with itself, cross-pairs with DNA and RNA, and shows promise as a tool in synthetic genetics, diagnostics, and oligonucleotide therapeutics. We studied in vitro primer insertion and extension reactions catalyzed by human trans-lesion synthesis (TLS) DNA polymerase η (hPol η) opposite a TNA-modified template strand without and in combination with O 4 -alkyl thymine lesions. Across TNA-T (tT), hPol η inserted mostly dAMP and dGMP, dTMP and dCMP with lower efficiencies, followed by extension of the primer to a full-length product. hPol η inserted dAMP opposite O 4 -methyl and -ethyl analogs of tT, albeit with reduced efficiencies relative to tT. Crystal structures of ternary hPol η complexes with template tT and O 4 -methyl tT at the insertion and extension stages demonstrated that the shorter backbone and different connectivity of TNA compared to DNA (3′ → 2′ versus 5′ → 3′, respectively) result in local differences in sugar orientations, adjacent phosphate spacings, and directions of glycosidic bonds. The 3′-OH of the primer’s terminal thymine was positioned at 3.4 Å on average from the α-phosphate of the incoming dNTP, consistent with insertion opposite and extension past the TNA residue by hPol η. Conversely, the crystal structure of a ternary hPol η·DNA·tTTP complex revealed that the primer’s terminal 3′-OH was too distant from the tTTP α-phosphate, consistent with the inability of the polymerase to incorporate TNA. Overall, our study provides a better understanding of the tolerance of a TLS DNA polymerase vis-à-vis unnatural nucleotides in the template and as the incoming nucleoside triphosphate.
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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".