Unveiling hidden structural patterns in the SARS-CoV-2 genome: Computational insights and comparative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, is known to exhibit secondary structures in its 5' and 3' untranslated regions, along with the frameshifting stimulatory element situated between ORF1a and 1b. To identify additional regions containing conserved structures, we utilized a multiple sequence alignment with related coronaviruses as a starting point. We applied a computational pipeline developed for identifying non-coding RNA elements. Our pipeline employed three different RNA structural prediction approaches. We identified forty genomic regions likely to harbor structures, with ten of them showing three-way consensus substructure predictions among our predictive utilities. We conducted intracomparisons of the predictive utilities within the pipeline and intercomparisons with four previously published SARS-CoV-2 structural datasets. While there was limited agreement on the precise structure, different approaches seemed to converge on regions likely to contain structures in the viral genome. By comparing and combining various computational approaches, we can predict regions most likely to form structures, as well as a probable structure or ensemble of structures. These predictions can be used to guide surveillance, prophylactic measures, or therapeutic efforts. Data and scripts employed in this study may be found at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8298680.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".