Progress toward SHAPE Constrained Computational Prediction of Tertiary Interactions in RNA Structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As more sequencing data accumulate and novel puzzling genetic regulations are discovered, the need for accurate automated modeling of RNA structure increases. RNA structure modeling from chemical probing experiments has made tremendous progress, however accurately predicting large RNA structures is still challenging for several reasons: RNA are inherently flexible and often adopt many energetically similar structures, which are not reliably distinguished by the available, incomplete thermodynamic model. Moreover, computationally, the problem is aggravated by the relevance of pseudoknots and non-canonical base pairs, which are hardly predicted efficiently. To identify nucleotides involved in pseudoknots and non-canonical interactions, we scrutinized the SHAPE reactivity of each nucleotide of the 188 nt long lariat-capping ribozyme under multiple conditions. Reactivities analyzed in the light of the X-ray structure were shown to report accurately the nucleotide status. Those that seemed paradoxical were rationalized by the nucleotide behavior along molecular dynamic simulations. We show that valuable information on intricate interactions can be deduced from probing with different reagents, and in the presence or absence of Mg2+. Furthermore, probing at increasing temperature was remarkably efficient at pointing to non-canonical interactions and pseudoknot pairings. The possibilities of following such strategies to inform structure modeling software are discussed.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".