replying to Clivio et al. Nature Communications https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27196-6 (2021)
In response to Dr. Clivio’s comments.
Dr. Clivio’s comments correctly point out that the choice of a particular stereoisomer shown as an illustration in Fig. 4c in our original manuscript1 was unfortunate, as we selected an isomer that turns out to be inconsistent with what the experimental data suggested. We had carried out some preliminary density functional theory (DFT) calculations to investigate the formation of the four different stereoisomers within the MOF pores (see Fig. 1 below). These calculations showed that the trans-syn (A) has the lowest energy (−24.5 kcal/mol), while the other isomers have energy in the range −10 to 13 kcal/mol, suggesting that experimentally one might preferentially form the trans-syn (A). These DFT calculations were performed at 0 K, while the experiments were done at room temperature. The minimum energy conformation of adenine-thymine bonding at 0 K would provide us with limited information about the behavior of thymine in the pores of the MOF at room temperature, which is why we turned to molecular dynamic simulations (MD) at room temperature. The results shown in Fig. 3c,d in our original manuscript1 are from MD simulations. These MD simulations were not restricted to one particular isomer. We agree with Dr. Clivio that if we would have limited our calculations to only the structure shown in Fig. 4c in the original manuscript1 would have introduced a bias, but in our MD simulations, we did not.
We concluded that the experimental data, while able to confirm the dimer formation, were unable to define whether a specific stereoisomer was favored. We, therefore, selected one stereoisomer for illustration, trans-anti (C), without any particular purpose in Fig. 4c. However, we do want to point out the following: in Dr. Clivio’s comment, the author mentioned, “ ….the authors provide evidence (see Fig. 3c,d, 4 in ref. 1.) clearly indicating that the photodimer is trans-anti, …” This is factually incorrect, as nowhere in our manuscript1, we make this claim. In fact, we incorrectly concluded that our experimental data did not provide any indication of which isomer would form. Given this conclusion, we used a random isomer for illustration purposes, but nowhere in the article we mention explicitly or implicitly that this photodimer is preferentially formed.
We are delighted to see that Dr. Clivio’s comment points out that our UHPLC- ESI/MS spectra of the SION-19-derived photoproduct show a fragment ion at m/z 210 (see Supplementary Figs. 36–37 and 41 in our original manuscript) which is characteristic of a syn (A) or (B) thymine dimer isomer2,3. This does not yet confirm our prediction, but it is an encouraging result as it excludes the formation of anti (C) or (D).
Finally, we do agree with Dr. Clivio that further HPLC experiments would be an interesting next step to further explore the stereoisomers present, and we also welcome additional suggestions to rigorously determine the specific mode of binding between host (MOF) and guest (thymine) at the supramolecular level and the stereochemistry of the dimerized photoproduct of these very interesting systems.
Data availability
All data supporting the findings of this study are available from the original publication or from the authors upon reasonable request.
References
Anderson, S. L. et al. Nucleobase pairing and photodimerization in a biologically derived metal-organic framework nanoreactor. Nat. Commun. 10, 1612 (2019).
Douki, T., Court, M. & Cadet, J. Electrospray–mass spectrometry characterization and measurement of far-UV-induced thymine photoproducts. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 54, 145–154 (2000).
Su, D. G. T., Kao, J. L. F., Gross, M. L. & Taylor, J. S. Structure determination of an interstrand- type cis-anti cyclobutane thymine dimer produced in high yield by UVB light in an oligodeoxynucleotide at acidic pH. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 130, 11328–11337 (2008).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
P.G.B., B.S., and K.C.S. wrote the reply to Dr. Clivio’s comments with contributions and comments from S.L.A., A.G., T.N.N., R.G.P., D.K., L.E., D.B., and M.J.R.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Communications thanks the anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Anderson, S.L., Boyd, P.G., Gładysiak, A. et al. Reply to “Inconsistencies in the specific nucleobase pairing motif prone to photodimerization in a MOF nanoreactor”. Nat Commun 13, 4486 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30193-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30193-y
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.