Predicting Consensus Structures for RNA Alignments via Pseudo-Energy Minimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thermodynamic processes with free energy parameters are often used in algorithms that solve the free energy minimization problem to predict secondary structures of single RNA sequences. While results from these algorithms are promising, an observation is that single sequence-based methods have moderate accuracy and more information is needed to improve on RNA secondary structure prediction, such as covariance scores obtained from multiple sequence alignments. We present in this paper a new approach to predicting the consensus secondary structure of a set of aligned RNA sequences via pseudo-energy minimization. Our tool, called RSpredict, takes into account sequence covariation and employs effective heuristics for accuracy improvement. RSpredict accepts, as input data, a multiple sequence alignment in FASTA or ClustalW format and outputs the consensus secondary structure of the input sequences in both the Vienna style Dot Bracket format and the Connectivity Table format. Our method was compared with some widely used tools including KNetFold, Pfold and RNAalifold. A comprehensive test on different datasets including Rfam sequence alignments and a multiple sequence alignment obtained from our study on the Drosophila X chromosome reveals that RSpredict is competitive with the existing tools on the tested datasets. RSpredict is freely available online as a web server and also as a jar file for download at http://datalab.njit.edu/biology/RSpredict.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".