Motif independent identification of potential RNA G-quadruplexes by G4RNA screener
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: G-quadruplex structures in RNA molecules are known to have regulatory impacts in cells but are difficult to locate in the genome. The minimal requirements for G-quadruplex folding in RNA (G≥3N1-7 G≥3N1-7 G≥3N1-7 G≥3) is being challenged by observations made on specific examples in recent years. The definition of potential G-quadruplex sequences has major repercussions on the observation of the structure since it introduces a bias. The canonical motif only describes a sub-population of the reported G-quadruplexes. To address these issues, we propose an RNA G-quadruplex prediction strategy that does not rely on a motif definition. RESULTS: We trained an artificial neural network with sequences of experimentally validated G-quadruplexes from the G4RNA database encoded using an abstract definition of their sequence. This artificial neural network, G4NN, evaluates the similarity of a given sequence to known G-quadruplexes and reports it as a score. G4NN has a predictive power comparable to the reported G richness and G/C skewness evaluations that are the current state-of-the-art for the identification of potential RNA G-quadruplexes. We combined these approaches in the G4RNA screener, a program designed to manage and evaluate the sequences to identify potential G-quadruplexes. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: G4RNA screener is available for download at http://gitlabscottgroup.med.usherbrooke.ca/J-Michel/g4rna_screener. CONTACT: jean-michel.garant@usherbrooke.ca or jean-pierre.perreault@usherbrooke.ca or michelle.scott@usherbrooke.ca. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".