Cited by 102Origins and Evolution of LifeChemical Reaction MechanismsRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms

A Highly Reactive Imidazolium-Bridged Dinucleotide Intermediate in Nonenzymatic RNA Primer Extension

Open access
Walton, Travis, Szostak, Jack W.·2016·Journal of the American Chemical Society

Abstract

Because of its importance for the origin of life, the nonenzymatic copying of RNA templates has been the subject of intense study for several decades. Previous characterizations of template-directed primer extension using 5′-phosphoryl-2-methylimidazole-activated nucleotides (2-MeImpNs) as substrates have assumed a classical in-line nucleophilic substitution mechanism, in which the 3′-hydroxyl of the primer attacks the phosphate of the incoming monomer, displacing the 2-methylimidazole leaving group. However, we have found that the initial rate of primer extension depends on the pH and concentration at which the activated monomer is maintained prior to the primer extension reaction. These and other results suggest an alternative mechanism, in which two monomers react with each other to form an imidazolium-bridged dinucleotide intermediate, which then binds to the template. Subsequent attack of the 3′-hydroxyl of the primer displaces an activated nucleotide as the leaving group and results in extension of the primer by one nucleotide. Analysis of monomer solutions by NMR indicates formation of the proposed imidazolium-bridged dinucleotide in the expected pH-dependent manner. We have used synthetic methods to prepare material that is enriched in this proposed intermediate and show that it is a highly reactive substrate for primer extension. The formation of an imidazolium-bridged dinucleotide intermediate provides a mechanistic interpretation of previously observed catalysis by an activated nucleotide located downstream from the site of primer extension.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/jacs.6b07977

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Szostak and co-workers found that 5′-5′imidazolium bridged dinucleotides improved fidelity and reaction rates by virtue of higher template-affinity and geometrical positioning of the reactive species.

    “Szostak and co-workers found that 5′-5′imidazolium bridged dinucleotides, which are formed spontaneously in the nucleotide activation reaction, improved fidelity and reaction rates by virtue of higher template-affinity and geometrical positioning of the reactive species.12−14”

    From Sequencing of <scp>d</scp>/<scp>l</scp>-DNA and XNA by Templated-Synthesis (2025) · cites this paper as [12]

    The Results and Discussion report that the imidazolium-bridged dinucleotide forms from activated monomers and is a highly reactive substrate that increases primer-extension rates. The Discussion proposes that its geometry may favor reaction, but says its template affinity remains to be measured; it does not establish improved copying fidelity. The claim presents those proposed mechanisms and the fidelity benefit as findings. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The intermediate could bind to the template through two adjacent Watson-Crick base pairs.

    “The template specificity of primer extension suggested that the intermediate could bind to the template through two adjacent Watson-Crick base pairs”

    From Protocells and RNA Self-Replication (2018) · cites this paper as Walton and Szostak 2016

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Szostak J. W.; Bartel D. P.; Luisi P. L. Nature 2001, 409, 387 10.1038/35053176. 11201752 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Zhu T. F.; Szostak J. W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2009, 131, 5705 10.1021/ja900919c. 19323552 PMC2669828 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Blain J. C.; Szostak J. W. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2014, 83, 615 10.1146/annurev-biochem-080411-124036. 24606140 · DOI
  4. Adamala K.; Szostak J. W. Science 2013, 342, 1098 10.1126/science.1241888. 24288333 PMC4104020 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Kervio E. C.; Claasen B.; Steiner U. E.; Richert C. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014, 42, 7409 10.1093/nar/gku314. 24875480 PMC4066754 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Izgu E. C.; Fahrenbach A. C.; Zhang N.; Li L.; Zhang W.; Larsen A. T.; Blain J. C.; Szostak J. W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 6373 10.1021/jacs.5b02707. 25901790 PMC4984997 · DOI
  7. Li L.; Lelyveld V. S.; Prywes N.; Szostak J. W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138, 3986 10.1021/jacs.6b00784. 26974265 PMC7547882 · DOI
  8. Vogel S. R.; Deck C.; Richert C. Chem. Commun. 2005, 39, 4922 10.1039/b510775j. 16205800 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Wu T.; Orgel L. E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1992, 114, 5496 10.1021/ja00040a002. 11538402 · DOI
  10. Prywes N.; Blain J. C.; Del Frate F.; Szostak J. W. eLife 2016, 5, e17756 10.7554/eLife.17756. 27351102 PMC4959843 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Heuberger B. D.; Pal A.; Del Frate F.; Topkar V. V.; Szostak J. W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2015, 137, 2769 10.1021/jacs.5b00445. 25654265 PMC4985000 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Kanavarioti A.; Rosenbach M. T. J. Org. Chem. 1991, 56, 1513 10.1021/jo00004a032. 11538282 · DOI
  13. Rathlev T.; Rosenberg T. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 1956, 65, 319 10.1016/0003-9861(56)90197-7. 13373428 · DOI
  14. Beard L. N.; Lenhert P. G. Acta Crystallogr., Sect. B: Struct. Crystallogr. Cryst. Chem. 1968, 24, 1529 10.1107/S0567740868004590. 5756995 · DOI
  15. Puthenvedu D.; Janas T.; Majerfeld I.; Illangasekare M.; Yarus M. RNA 2015, 21, 1818 10.1261/rna.052696.115. 26272215 PMC4574757 · DOI
  16. Inoue T.; Orgel L. E. J. Mol. Biol. 1982, 162, 201 10.1016/0022-2836(82)90169-3. 6296405 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Kervio E.; Sosson M.; Richert C. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016, 44, 5504 10.1093/nar/gkw476. 27235418 PMC4937335 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Nawrot B.; Hoffmüller P.; Sprinzl M. Chem. Papers 1996, 50, 151.
  19. Oró J.; Basile B.; Cortes S.; Shen C.; Yamrom T. Origins Life 1984, 14, 237 10.1007/BF00933663. 6462668 · DOI
  20. Singh S. K.; Nielsen P.; Koshkin A. A.; Wengel J. Chem. Commun. 1998, 455 10.1039/a708608c. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Walton, T., & Szostak, J. W.
Affiliations
Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Szostak, Jack W.
Venue
Journal of the American Chemical Society
Published
2016-08-23
Volume
138
Issue
36
Pages
11996-12002
ISSN
  • 0002-7863 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5126
OpenAlex
W2512565170
Cited by
102
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 1
FWCI
6.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Chemical Society (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Simons Foundation (290363)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Origins and Evolution of Life
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Chemical Reaction Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Keywords
origin of life, nucleophilic substitution mechanism, pH dependence
MeSH terms
Imidazoles, Isotope Labeling, Kinetics, Models, Molecular, Nucleic Acid Conformation, Nucleotides, RNA

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review