PRIESSTESS: interpretable, high-performing models of the sequence and structure preferences of RNA-binding proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modelling both primary sequence and secondary structure preferences for RNA binding proteins (RBPs) remains an ongoing challenge. Current models use varied RNA structure representations and can be difficult to interpret and evaluate. To address these issues, we present a universal RNA motif-finding/scanning strategy, termed PRIESSTESS (Predictive RBP-RNA InterpretablE Sequence-Structure moTif regrESSion), that can be applied to diverse RNA binding datasets. PRIESSTESS identifies dozens of enriched RNA sequence and/or structure motifs that are subsequently reduced to a set of core motifs by logistic regression with LASSO regularization. Importantly, these core motifs are easily visualized and interpreted, and provide a measure of RBP secondary structure specificity. We used PRIESSTESS to interrogate new HTR-SELEX data for 23 RBPs with diverse RNA binding modes and captured known primary sequence and secondary structure preferences for each. Moreover, when applying PRIESSTESS to 144 RBPs across 202 RNA binding datasets, 75% showed an RNA secondary structure preference but only 10% had a preference besides unpaired bases, suggesting that most RBPs simply recognize the accessibility of primary sequences.
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) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".