Graph neural representational learning of RNA secondary structures for predicting RNA-protein interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bstract Motivation RNA-protein interactions are key effectors of post-transcriptional regulation. Significant experimental and bioinformatics efforts have been expended on characterizing protein binding mechanisms on the molecular level, and on highlighting the sequence and structural traits of RNA that impact the binding specificity for different proteins. Yet our ability to predict these interactions in silico remains relatively poor. Results In this study, we introduce RPI-Net, a graph neural network approach for RNA-protein interaction prediction. RPI-Net learns and exploits a graph representation of RNA molecules, yielding significant performance gains over existing state-of-the-art approaches. We also introduce an approach to rectify particular type of sequence bias present in many CLIP-Seq data sets, and we show that correcting this bias is essential in order to learn meaningful predictors and properly evaluate their accuracy. Finally, we provide new approaches to interpret the trained models and extract simple, biologically-interpretable representations of the learned sequence and structural motifs. Availability Source code can be accessed at https://www.github.com/HarveyYan/RNAonGraph . Contact wlh@cs.mcgill.ca , blanchem@cs.mcgill.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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".