Knotty: efficient and accurate prediction of complex RNA pseudoknot structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivation: The computational prediction of RNA secondary structure by free energy minimization has become an important tool in RNA research. However in practice, energy minimization is mostly limited to pseudoknot-free structures or rather simple pseudoknots, not covering many biologically important structures such as kissing hairpins. Algorithms capable of predicting sufficiently complex pseudoknots (for sequences of length n) used to have extreme complexities, e.g. Pknots has O(n6) time and O(n4) space complexity. The algorithm CCJ dramatically improves the asymptotic run time for predicting complex pseudoknots (handling almost all relevant pseudoknots, while being slightly less general than Pknots), but this came at the cost of large constant factors in space and time, which strongly limited its practical application (∼200 bases already require 256 GB space). Results: We present a CCJ-type algorithm, Knotty, that handles the same comprehensive pseudoknot class of structures as CCJ with improved space complexity of Θ(n3+Z)-due to the applied technique of sparsification, the number of 'candidates', Z, appears to grow significantly slower than n4 on our benchmark set (which include pseudoknotted RNAs up to 400 nt). In terms of run time over this benchmark, Knotty clearly outperforms Pknots and the original CCJ implementation, CCJ 1.0; Knotty's space consumption fundamentally improves over CCJ 1.0, being on a par with the space-economic Pknots. By comparing to CCJ 2.0, our unsparsified Knotty variant, we demonstrate the isolated effect of sparsification. Moreover, Knotty employs the state-of-the-art energy model of 'HotKnots DP09', which results in superior prediction accuracy over Pknots. Availability and implementation: Our software is available at https://github.com/HosnaJabbari/Knotty. 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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".