Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23634662›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2013

Quantifying variances in comparative RNA secondary structure prediction.

James W J Anderson, Ádám Novák, Zsuzsanna Sükösd, Michael Golden, Preeti Arunapuram, Ingolfur Edvardsson, Jotun Hein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

7 authors.

James W J AndersonDepartment of Statistics, South Parks Road, Oxford, UK. anderson@stats.ox.ac.uk
Ádám Novák
Zsuzsanna Sükösd
Michael Golden
Preeti Arunapuram
Ingolfur Edvardsson
Jotun Hein

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/D012139/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the advancement of next-generation sequencing and transcriptomics technologies, regulatory effects involving RNA, in particular RNA structural changes are being detected. These results often rely on RNA secondary structure predictions. However, current approaches to RNA secondary structure modelling produce predictions with a high variance in predictive accuracy, and we have little quantifiable knowledge about the reasons for these variances.

resultsIn this paper we explore a number of factors which can contribute to poor RNA secondary structure prediction quality. We establish a quantified relationship between alignment quality and loss of accuracy. Furthermore, we define two new measures to quantify uncertainty in alignment-based structure predictions. One of the measures improves on the "reliability score" reported by PPfold, and considers alignment uncertainty as well as base-pair probabilities. The other measure considers the information entropy for SCFGs over a space of input alignments.

conclusionsOur predictive accuracy improves on the PPfold reliability score. We can successfully characterize many of the underlying reasons for and variances in poor prediction. However, there is still variability unaccounted for, which we therefore suggest comes from the RNA secondary structure predictive model itself.

Indexed as

Sequence Analysis, RNAAlgorithmsBase PairingEvolution, MolecularNucleic Acid ConformationProbabilityReproducibility of ResultsRNASequence AlignmentRNA

Identifiers

PMID23634662
PMCPMC3667108

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.