4.6 Article

Exploring the Influence of Intermolecular Interactions in Prebiotic Chemistry Using Laser Spectroscopy and Calculations

期刊

CHEMISTRY-A EUROPEAN JOURNAL
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/chem.202103636

关键词

aggregation; computational chemistry; laser spectroscopy; noncovalent interactions; prebiotic chemistry

资金

  1. Basque Government [IT1162-19]
  2. MICIU [PGC2018-098561-B-C21]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article discusses why nature chose CGAT as the alphabet of life. Through analysis of intermolecular interactions and determination of dimer structures, it was found that adenine-theobromine and 4-aminopyrimidine-theobromine dimers have binding energies close to canonical nucleobases and can adopt Watson-Crick conformations. Nature may have had many options available for building the first informational polymers before ultimately selecting the now canonical CGAT.
One of the most fascinating questions in chemistry is why nature chose CGAT as the alphabet of life. Very likely, such selection was the result of multiple factors and a long period of refinement. Here, we explore how the intermolecular interactions influenced such process, by characterizing the formation of dimers between adenine, theobromine and 4-aminopyrimidine. Using a combination of mass-resolved excitation spectroscopy and DFT calculations, we determined the structure of adenine-theobromine and 4-aminopyrimidine-theobromine dimers. The binding energy of these dimers is very close to the canonical adenine-thymine nucleobases. Likewise, the dimers are able to adopt Watson-Crick conformations. These findings seem to indicate that there were many options available to build the first versions of the informational polymers, which also had to compete with other molecules, such as 4-aminopyrimidine, which does not have a valid attaching point for a saccharide. For some reason, nature did not select the most strongly-bonded partners or if it did, such proto-bases were later replaced by the nowadays canonical CGAT.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据