RNALigands: a database and web server for RNA–ligand interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RNA molecules can fold into complex and stable 3D structures, allowing them to carry out important genetic, structural, and regulatory roles inside the cell. These complex structures often contain 3D pockets made up of secondary structural motifs that can be potentially targeted by small molecule ligands. Indeed, many RNA structures in PDB contain bound small molecules, and high-throughput experimental studies have generated a large number of interacting RNA and ligand pairs. There is considerable interest in developing small molecule lead compounds targeting viral RNAs or those RNAs implicated in neurological diseases or cancer. We hypothesize that RNAs that have similar secondary structural motifs may bind to similar small molecule ligands. Toward this goal, we established a database collecting RNA secondary structural motifs and bound small molecule ligands. We further developed a computational pipeline, which takes as input an RNA sequence, predicts its secondary structure, extracts structural motifs, and searches the database for similar secondary structure motifs and interacting small molecule. We demonstrated the utility of the server by querying α-synuclein mRNA 5' UTR sequence and finding potential matches which were validated as correct. The server is publicly available at http://RNALigands.ccbr.utoronto.ca The source code can also be downloaded at https://github.com/SaisaiSun/RNALigands.
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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.046 |
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".