Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25625599›Full record

ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2015

What RNA World? Why a Peptide/RNA Partnership Merits Renewed Experimental Attention.

Charles W Carter

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Charles W CarterDepartment of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7260, USA. carter@med.unc.edu.

Funding

Sense/Antisense Genetic Coding and the Origins of TranslationR01GM078227 · NIGMS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI CARTER, CHARLES W. · 2006 to 2018
$3.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM078227
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We review arguments that biology emerged from a reciprocal partnership in which small ancestral oligopeptides and oligonucleotides initially both contributed rudimentary information coding and catalytic rate accelerations, and that the superior information-bearing qualities of RNA and the superior catalytic potential of proteins emerged from such complexes only with the gradual invention of the genetic code. A coherent structural basis for that scenario was articulated nearly a decade before the demonstration of catalytic RNA. Parallel hierarchical catalytic repertoires for increasingly highly conserved sequences from the two synthetase classes now increase the likelihood that they arose as translation products from opposite strands of a single gene. Sense/antisense coding affords a new bioinformatic metric for phylogenetic relationships much more distant than can be reconstructed from multiple sequence alignments of a single superfamily. Evidence for distinct coding properties in tRNA acceptor stems and anticodons, and experimental demonstration that the two synthetase family ATP binding sites can indeed be coded by opposite strands of the same gene supplement these biochemical and bioinformatic data, establishing a solid basis for key intermediates on a path from simple, stereochemically coded, reciprocally catalytic peptide/RNA complexes through the earliest peptide catalysts to contemporary aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. That scenario documents a path to increasing complexity that obviates the need for a single polymer to act both catalytically and as an informational molecule.

Identifiers

PMID25625599
PMCPMC4390853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.