RNA–RNA Interaction Prediction and Antisense RNA Target Search
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies demonstrating the existence of special noncoding "antisense" RNAs used in post transcriptional gene regulation have received considerable attention. These RNAs are synthesized naturally to control gene expression in C. elegans, Drosophila, and other organisms; they are known to regulate plasmid copy numbers in E. coli as well. Small RNAs have also been artificially constructed to knock out genes of interest in humans and other organisms for the purpose of finding out more about their functions. Although there are a number of algorithms for predicting the secondary structure of a single RNA molecule, no such algorithm exists for reliably predicting the joint secondary structure of two interacting RNA molecules or measuring the stability of such a joint structure. In this paper, we describe the RNA-RNA interaction prediction (RIP) problem between an antisense RNA and its target mRNA and develop efficient algorithms to solve it. Our algorithms minimize the joint free energy between the two RNA molecules under a number of energy models with growing complexity. Because the computational resources needed by our most accurate approach is prohibitive for long RNA molecules, we also describe how to speed up our techniques through a number of heuristic approaches while experimentally maintaining the original accuracy. Equipped with this fast approach, we apply our method to discover targets for any given antisense RNA in the associated genome sequence.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".