MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156501361 · doi:10.1089/cmb.2007.0062

Locality and Gaps in RNA Comparison

2007· article· en· W2156501361 on OpenAlexaff
Rolf Backofen, Shihyen Chen, Danny Hermelin, Gad M. Landau, Mikhail Roytberg, Oren Weimann, Kaizhong Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Biology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersEdmond de Rothschild FoundationRussian Foundation for Basic Research
KeywordsLocalityComputationAffine transformationSmith–Waterman algorithmAlgorithmMetric (unit)String (physics)Sequence (biology)RNAComputer scienceMultiple sequence alignmentMathematicsSequence alignmentBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Locality is an important and well-studied notion in comparative analysis of biological sequences. Similarly, taking into account affine gap penalties when calculating biological sequence alignments is a well-accepted technique for obtaining better alignments. When dealing with RNA, one has to take into consideration not only sequential features, but also structural features of the inspected molecule. This makes the computation more challenging, and usually prohibits the comparison only to small RNAs. In this paper we introduce two local metrics for comparing RNAs that extend the Smith-Waterman metric and its normalized version used for string comparison. We also present a global RNA alignment algorithm which handles affine gap penalties. Our global algorithm runs in O(m(2)n(1 + lg n/m)) time, while our local algorithms run in O(m(2)n(1 + lg n/m)) and O(n(2)m) time, respectively, where m <or= n are the lengths of the two given RNAs. These time complexities are comparable to the time complexity of any known RNA alignment algorithm. Furthermore, both our global and local algorithms are robust to selections of arbitrary scoring schemes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational BiologySame topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsFrench-language works237,207