A comprehensive comparison of general RNA–RNA interaction prediction methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RNA-RNA interactions are fast emerging as a major functional component in many newly discovered non-coding RNAs. Basepairing is believed to be a major contributor to the stability of these intermolecular interactions, much like intramolecular basepairs formed in RNA secondary structure. As such, using algorithms similar to those for predicting RNA secondary structure, computational methods have been recently developed for the prediction of RNA-RNA interactions. We provide the first comprehensive comparison comprising 14 methods that predict general intermolecular basepairs. To evaluate these, we compile an extensive data set of 54 experimentally confirmed fungal snoRNA-rRNA interactions and 102 bacterial sRNA-mRNA interactions. We test the performance accuracy of all methods, evaluating the effects of tool settings, sequence length, and multiple sequence alignment usage and quality. Our results show that-unlike for RNA secondary structure prediction--the overall best performing tools are non-comparative energy-based tools utilizing accessibility information that predict short interactions on this data set. Furthermore, we find that maintaining high accuracy across biologically different data sets and increasing input lengths remains a huge challenge, causing implications for de novo transcriptome-wide searches. Finally, we make our interaction data set publicly available for future development and benchmarking efforts.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".