4.7 Article

Stability of free and mineral-protected nucleic acids: Implications for the RNA world

期刊

GEOCHIMICA ET COSMOCHIMICA ACTA
卷 83, 期 -, 页码 360-378

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2011.12.023

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation
  2. Texas Advanced Computing Center (Ranger)
  3. National Institute of Computer Science (Kraken) [MCA04N014, DMR070013N]
  4. Argonne National Laboratory
  5. Office of Science of the U. S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  6. EU [508830]
  7. EPSRC
  8. EPSRC [EP/I034602/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using molecular dynamics simulations we study the structural stability of three different nucleic acids intercalated within a magnesium aluminium layered double hydroxide (LDH) mineral, at varying degrees of hydration, and free in aqueous solution. The nucleotides investigated are ribose nucleic acid (RNA), deoxyribose nucleic acid (DNA) and peptide nucleic acid (PNA), all in duplex form. Our simulations show that DNA has enhanced Watson-Crick hydrogen-bonding when intercalated within the LDH clay interlayers, compared with intercalated RNA and PNA, whilst the reverse trend is found for the nucleic acids in bulk water. The tendency for LDH to alter the stability of the three nucleic acids persists for higher temperature and pressure conditions. The uncharged protein backbone of PNA is found to have a detrimental effect on the overall stability of the duplex, as it experiences a greatly reduced electrostatic interaction with the charged LDH sheets compared to RNA and DNA. Assuming an RNA world, in which RNA preceded the DNA/protein world, at some point in time DNA must have taken over the role as the information storage molecule from RNA. These results suggest that a mineral based origin of life may have favoured DNA as the information-storage biomolecule over potentially competing RNA and PNA, providing a route to modern biology from the RNA world. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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