Pairwise visual comparison of small RNA secondary structures with base pair probabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Predicted RNA secondary structures are typically visualized using dot-plots for base pair binding probabilities and planar graphs for unique structures, such as the minimum free energy structure. These are however difficult to analyze simultaneously. Results This work introduces a compact unified view of the most stable conformation of an RNA secondary structure and its base pair probabilities, which is called the Circular Secondary Structure Base Pairs Probabilities Plot (CS2BP2-Plot). Along with our design we provide access to a web server implementation of our solution that facilitates pairwise comparison of short RNA (and DNA) sequences up to 200 base pairs. The web server first calculates the minimum free energy secondary structure and the base pair probabilities for up to 10 RNA or DNA sequences using RNAfold and then provides a two panel comparative view that includes CS2BP2-Plots along with the traditional graph, planar and circular diagrams obtained with VARNA. The CS2BP2-Plots include highlighting of the nucleotide differences between two selected sequences using ClustalW local alignments. We also provide descriptive statistics, dot-bracket secondary structure representations and ClustalW local alignments for compared sequences. Conclusions Using circular diagrams and colour and weight-coded arcs, we demonstrate how a single image can replace the state-of-the-art dual representations (dot-plots and minimum free energy structures) for base-pair probabilities of RNA secondary structures while allowing efficient exploration and comparison of different RNA conformations via a web server front end. With that, we provide the community, especially the biologically oriented, with an intuitive tool for ncRNA visualization. Web-server: https://cs2bp2plot.cluster.gctools.nrc.ca/
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".