= A. M. Weiner
{c}
A. M. Weiner is a credited coauthor, with <Yuan Zhuang>, of a 1986 experimental study of <RNA splicing>. The study tested whether <base pairing> between <U1 small nuclear RNA> and a precursor <RNA>'s <splice donor site> contributes directly to recognition. A compensating change in one partner could rescue a change in the other, supporting a specific molecular interaction.<A compensatory base change in U1 snRNA suppresses a 5′ splice site mutation by Y. Zhuang and A. M. Weiner>[Published byline and abstract: compensatory suppression as a test of donor recognition]{ref}
The reasoning goes beyond observing that a damaged <RNA> fails to undergo <RNA splicing>. In an original schematic example, imagine a compatible pair of sequence features $(a,b)$. Either $(a',b)$ or $(a,b')$ disrupts their interaction, while $(a',b')$ restores compatibility. Recovery in the double change supports a pairing explanation more specifically than failure after either single change. This is the logic of a <suppressor mutation>, not a claim that the compensating molecule restores every other property of the original system.
The paper also reported unequal rescue at two <splice donor sites>. Thus restored <nucleic acid complementarity> did not invariably restore productive <RNA splicing>. Recognition by <U1 snRNP> has to cooperate with the rest of the <spliceosome>, making this experiment informative about both a required interaction and its limits.<A compensatory base change in U1 snRNA suppresses a 5′ splice site mutation by Y. Zhuang and A. M. Weiner>[Abstract: efficient suppression at one donor and exceedingly weak suppression at the other; base pairing necessary but insufficient]{ref}
Back to article page
