Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empirical models of substitution are often used in protein sequence analysis because the large alphabet of amino acids requires that many parameters be estimated in all but the simplest parametric models. When information about structure is used in the analysis of substitutions in structured RNA, a similar situation occurs. The number of parameters necessary to adequately describe the substitution process increases in order to model the substitution of paired bases. We have developed a method to obtain substitution rate matrices empirically from RNA alignments that include structural information in the form of base pairs. Our data consisted of alignments from the European Ribosomal RNA Database of Bacterial and Eukaryotic Small Subunit and Large Subunit Ribosomal RNA ( Wuyts et al. 2001. Nucleic Acids Res. 29:175-177; Wuyts et al. 2002. Nucleic Acids Res. 30:183-185). Using secondary structural information, we converted each sequence in the alignments into a sequence over a 20-symbol code: one symbol for each of the four individual bases, and one symbol for each of the 16 ordered pairs. Substitutions in the coded sequences are defined in the natural way, as observed changes between two sequences at any particular site. For given ranges (windows) of sequence divergence, we obtained substitution frequency matrices for the coded sequences. Using a technique originally developed for modeling amino acid substitutions ( Veerassamy, Smith, and Tillier. 2003. J. Comput. Biol. 10:997-1010), we were able to estimate the actual evolutionary distance for each window. The actual evolutionary distances were used to derive instantaneous rate matrices, and from these we selected a universal rate matrix. The universal rate matrices were incorporated into the Phylip Software package ( Felsenstein 2002. http://evolution.genetics.washington.edu/phylip.html), and we analyzed the ribosomal RNA alignments using both distance and maximum likelihood methods. The empirical substitution models performed well on simulated data, and produced reasonable evolutionary trees for 16S ribosomal RNA sequences from sequenced Bacterial genomes. Empirical models have the advantage of being easily implemented, and the fact that the code consists of 20 symbols makes the models easily incorporated into existing programs for protein sequence analysis. In addition, the models are useful for simulating the evolution of RNA sequence and structure simultaneously.
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".