MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405953062 · doi:10.1093/bib/bbae682

R3Design: deep tertiary structure-based RNA sequence design and beyond

2024· article· en· W4405953062 on OpenAlexafffund
Cheng Tan, Yijie Zhang, Zhangyang Gao, Hanqun Cao, Siyuan Li, Siqi Ma, Mathieu Blanchette, Stan Z. Li

Bibliographic record

VenueBriefings in Bioinformatics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaWestlake UniversityCompute Canada
KeywordsSequence (biology)Computational biologyComputer scienceRNABiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rational design of Ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules is crucial for advancing therapeutic applications, synthetic biology, and understanding the fundamental principles of life. Traditional RNA design methods have predominantly focused on secondary structure-based sequence design, often neglecting the intricate and essential tertiary interactions. We introduce R3Design, a tertiary structure-based RNA sequence design method that shifts the paradigm to prioritize tertiary structure in the RNA sequence design. R3Design significantly enhances sequence design on native RNA backbones, achieving high sequence recovery and Macro-F1 score, and outperforming traditional secondary structure-based approaches by substantial margins. We demonstrate that R3Design can design RNA sequences that fold into the desired tertiary structures by validating these predictions using advanced structure prediction models. This method, which is available through standalone software, provides a comprehensive toolkit for designing, folding, and evaluating RNA at the tertiary level. Our findings demonstrate R3Design's superior capability in designing RNA sequences, which achieves around $44\%$ in terms of both recovery score and Macro-F1 score in multiple datasets. This not only denotes the accuracy and fairness of the model but also underscores its potential to drive forward the development of innovative RNA-based therapeutics and to deepen our understanding of RNA biology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBriefings in BioinformaticsSame topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsFrench-language works237,207