Median and small parsimony problems on RNA trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) express their functions by adopting molecular structures. Specifically, RNA secondary structures serve as a relatively stable intermediate step before tertiary structures, offering a reliable signature of molecular function. Consequently, within an RNA functional family, secondary structures are generally more evolutionarily conserved than sequences. Conversely, homologous RNA families grouped within an RNA clan share ancestors but typically exhibit structural differences. Inferring the evolution of RNA structures within RNA families and clans is crucial for gaining insights into functional adaptations over time and providing clues about the Ancient RNA World Hypothesis. RESULTS: We introduce the median problem and the small parsimony problem for ncRNA families, where secondary structures are represented as leaf-labeled trees. We utilize the Robinson-Foulds (RF) tree distance, which corresponds to a specific edit distance between RNA trees, and a new metric called the Internal-Leafset (IL) distance. While the RF tree distance compares sets of leaves descending from internal nodes of two RNA trees, the IL distance compares the collection of leaf-children of internal nodes. The latter is better at capturing differences in structural elements of RNAs than the RF distance, which is more focused on base pairs. We also consider a more general tree edit distance that allows the mapping of base pairs that are not perfectly aligned. We study the theoretical complexity of the median problem and the small parsimony problem under the three distance metrics and various biologically relevant constraints, and we present polynomial-time maximum parsimony algorithms for solving some versions of the problems. Our algorithms are applied to ncRNA families from the RFAM database, illustrating their practical utility. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: https://github.com/bmarchand/rna\_small\_parsimony.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".