Improve the Prediction of RNA-Binding Residues Using Structural Neighbours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interactions between RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) with RNA play key roles in managing some of the cell's basic functions. The identification and prediction of RNA binding sites is important for understanding the RNA-binding mechanism. Computational approaches are being developed to predict RNA-binding residues based on the sequence- or structure-derived features. To achieve higher prediction accuracy, improvements on current prediction methods are necessary. We identified that the structural neighbors of RNA-binding and non-RNA-binding residues have different amino acid compositions. Combining this structure-derived feature with evolutionary (PSSM) and other structural information (secondary structure and solvent accessibility) significantly improves the predictions over existing methods. Using a multiple linear regression approach and 6-fold cross validation, our best model can achieve an overall correct rate of 87.8% and MCC of 0.47, with a specificity of 93.4%, correctly predict 52.4% of the RNA-binding residues for a dataset containing 107 non-homologous RNA-binding proteins. Compared with existing methods, including the amino acid compositions of structure neighbors lead to clearly improvement. A web server was developed for predicting RNA binding residues in a protein sequence (or structure),which is available at http://mcgill.3322.org/RNA/.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".