<tt>incaRNAfbinv 2.0</tt>: a webserver and software with motif control for fragment-based design of RNAs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY: RNA design has conceptually evolved from the inverse RNA folding problem. In the classical inverse RNA problem, the user inputs an RNA secondary structure and receives an output RNA sequence that folds into it. Although modern RNA design methods are based on the same principle, a finer control over the resulting sequences is sought. As an important example, a substantial number of non-coding RNA families show high preservation in specific regions, while being more flexible in others and this information should be utilized in the design. By using the additional information, RNA design tools can help solve problems of practical interest in the growing fields of synthetic biology and nanotechnology. incaRNAfbinv 2.0 utilizes a fragment-based approach, enabling a control of specific RNA secondary structure motifs. The new version allows significantly more control over the general RNA shape, and also allows to express specific restrictions over each motif separately, in addition to other advanced features. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: incaRNAfbinv 2.0 is available through a standalone package and a web-server at https://www.cs.bgu.ac.il/incaRNAfbinv. Source code, command-line and GUI wrappers can be found at https://github.com/matandro/RNAsfbinv. 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.152 | 0.075 |
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".