Please, don't apologize. I wasn't making much sense biologically, and now I realize that I'm confusing really basic stuff in RNA maturation process. I really must go over my notes and books before I make more of a mess and take much more of your time.
What does make sense in what I'm saying, I think, is that different reflection symmetries in the chain to be cut must play an important role in the cutting process, because the enzyme's job is to cut a line of covalent bonds, so a very high energy barrier must be overcome. As CharonY says:
(my emphasis)
So the general idea that I get from these comments is something like: Oh, so the enzymes that do the job of cutting must either twist the strand, bend it, then act like scissors... Now, these physical actions all require some handling of the object with different configurations of strong opposite pairs of force. This is very different from what is required in, e.g., helicases, which only need to overcome hydrogen bonds to untangle the double strand for reading and don't require any kind of symmetric grasping of the molecule that I can think of.
In one of the images that you so kindly (but so much overestimating my understanding of biology) have attached, I've found something very interesting. I can see a single-stranded sequence under the tag hsa-miR-25-5p that reads,
TCCGCCT
Now, I don't know what the significance of that sequence is, but it is a palindrome in a different sense than palindromes in double-stranded DNA are. This is a palindrome of itself in the sense of ordinary-language palindromes. I.e., if you read it in a 5'-to-3' direction, instead of 3'-to-5', it doesn't change. The palindromes selected for cutting in double-stranded DNA, for example, are different. They are palindromes only if you apply a sequence of two "inversions". Take, for example, my blah-blah example,
AGGCCT
First invert (read 5' to 3' instead of 3' to 5'): AGGCCT --> TCCGGA
Then complementary invert (A-->T, C-->G, G-->C, T-->A): TCCGGA --> AGGCCT
And you're back where you started. The fact that different kinds of palindromes pop up when cutting, twisting, etc. are involved; I don't think is coincidental.
Free-energy considerations don't interest me so much at this point, important though they are.
Please don't trust me when I say anything strictly biological, as it's well over my head there. And do feel free to drop the conversation at any point if you don't find it useful or revealing or anything.
Do 'dimers' here --or elsewhere in biology-- refer to primary structure only? Two symmetrically-placed terciary-structure blobs of protein weakly attached to each other wouldn't be a dimer, would they? My ignorance shows, I know.
Thank you very much.