QRNAstruct: a method for extracting secondary structural features of RNA via regression with biological activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent technological advances have enabled the generation of large amounts of data consisting of RNA sequences and their functional activity. Here, we propose a method for extracting secondary structure features that affect the functional activity of RNA from sequence-activity data. Given pairs of RNA sequences and their corresponding bioactivity values, our method calculates position-specific structural features of the input RNA sequences, considering every possible secondary structure of each RNA. A Ridge regression model is trained using the structural features as feature vectors and the bioactivity values as response variables. Optimized model parameters indicate how secondary structure features affect bioactivity. We used our method to extract intramolecular structural features of bacterial translation initiation sites and self-cleaving ribozymes, and the intermolecular features between rRNAs and Shine-Dalgarno sequences and between U1 RNAs and splicing sites. We not only identified known structural features but also revealed more detailed insights into structure-activity relationships than previously reported. Importantly, the datasets we analyzed here were obtained from different experimental systems and differed in size, sequence length and similarity, and number of RNA molecules involved, demonstrating that our method is applicable to various types of data consisting of RNA sequences and bioactivity values.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".