Predicting in vivo binding sites of RNA-binding proteins using mRNA secondary structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While many RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) bind RNA in a sequence-specific manner, their sequence preferences alone do not distinguish known target RNAs from other potential targets that are coexpressed and contain the same sequence motifs. Recently, the mRNA targets of dozens of RNA-binding proteins have been identified, facilitating a systematic study of the features of target transcripts. Using these data, we demonstrate that calculating the predicted structural accessibility of a putative RBP binding site allows one to significantly improve the accuracy of predicting in vivo binding for the majority of sequence-specific RBPs. In our new in silico approach, accessibility is predicted based solely on the mRNA sequence without consideration of the locations of bound trans-factors; as such, our results suggest a greater than previously anticipated role for intrinsic mRNA secondary structure in determining RBP binding target preference. Target site accessibility aids in predicting target transcripts and the binding sites for RBPs with a range of RNA-binding domains and subcellular functions. Based on this work, we introduce a new motif-finding algorithm that identifies accessible sequence-specific RBP motifs from in vivo binding data.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".