Structural studies of RNA-protein complexes: A hybrid approach involving hydrodynamics, scattering, and computational methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diverse functional cellular roles played by ribonucleic acids (RNA) have emphasized the need to develop rapid and accurate methodologies to elucidate the relationship between the structure and function of RNA. Structural biology tools such as X-ray crystallography and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance are highly useful methods to obtain atomic-level resolution models of macromolecules. However, both methods have sample, time, and technical limitations that prevent their application to a number of macromolecules of interest. An emerging alternative to high-resolution structural techniques is to employ a hybrid approach that combines low-resolution shape information about macromolecules and their complexes from experimental hydrodynamic (e.g. analytical ultracentrifugation) and solution scattering measurements (e.g., solution X-ray or neutron scattering), with computational modeling to obtain atomic-level models. While promising, scattering methods rely on aggregation-free, monodispersed preparations and therefore the careful development of a quality control pipeline is fundamental to an unbiased and reliable structural determination. This review article describes hydrodynamic techniques that are highly valuable for homogeneity studies, scattering techniques useful to study the low-resolution shape, and strategies for computational modeling to obtain high-resolution 3D structural models of RNAs, proteins, and RNA-protein complexes.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".