The RNA structure alignment ontology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple sequence alignments are powerful tools for understanding the structures, functions, and evolutionary histories of linear biological macromolecules (DNA, RNA, and proteins), and for finding homologs in sequence databases. We address several ontological issues related to RNA sequence alignments that are informed by structure. Multiple sequence alignments are usually shown as two-dimensional (2D) matrices, with rows representing individual sequences, and columns identifying nucleotides from different sequences that correspond structurally, functionally, and/or evolutionarily. However, the requirement that sequences and structures correspond nucleotide-by-nucleotide is unrealistic and hinders representation of important biological relationships. High-throughput sequencing efforts are also rapidly making 2D alignments unmanageable because of vertical and horizontal expansion as more sequences are added. Solving the shortcomings of traditional RNA sequence alignments requires explicit annotation of the meaning of each relationship within the alignment. We introduce the notion of "correspondence," which is an equivalence relation between RNA elements in sets of sequences as the basis of an RNA alignment ontology. The purpose of this ontology is twofold: first, to enable the development of new representations of RNA data and of software tools that resolve the expansion problems with current RNA sequence alignments, and second, to facilitate the integration of sequence data with secondary and three-dimensional structural information, as well as other experimental information, to create simultaneously more accurate and more exploitable RNA alignments.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
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".