Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19014431›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2008

RNAalifold: improved consensus structure prediction for RNA alignments.

Stephan H Bernhart, Ivo L Hofacker, Sebastian Will, Andreas R Gruber, Peter F Stadler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 343 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
343citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

343 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Distribution of prophage-encoded Pas sRNAs across pathogenicbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. RNA Structure and Its Function.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article

283 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Stephan H BernhartDepartment of Computer Science, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. berni@tbi.univie.ac.at
Ivo L Hofacker
Sebastian Will
Andreas R Gruber
Peter F Stadler

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prediction of a consensus structure for a set of related RNAs is an important first step for subsequent analyses. RNAalifold, which computes the minimum energy structure that is simultaneously formed by a set of aligned sequences, is one of the oldest and most widely used tools for this task. In recent years, several alternative approaches have been advocated, pointing to several shortcomings of the original RNAalifold approach.

resultsWe show that the accuracy of RNAalifold predictions can be improved substantially by introducing a different, more rational handling of alignment gaps, and by replacing the rather simplistic model of covariance scoring with more sophisticated RIBOSUM-like scoring matrices. These improvements are achieved without compromising the computational efficiency of the algorithm. We show here that the new version of RNAalifold not only outperforms the old one, but also several other tools recently developed, on different datasets.

conclusionThe new version of RNAalifold not only can replace the old one for almost any application but it is also competitive with other approaches including those based on SCFGs, maximum expected accuracy, or hierarchical nearest neighbor classifiers.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsModels, ChemicalNucleic Acid ConformationSoftwareAmino Acid SequenceComputational BiologyRNASequence AlignmentRNA

Identifiers

PMID19014431
PMCPMC2621365

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.