Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27402765›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2016

Blind tests of RNA nearest-neighbor energy prediction.

Fang-Chieh Chou, Wipapat Kladwang, Kalli Kappel, Rhiju Das

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Diaminopurine in Nonenzymatic RNA Template Copying.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Modified RNAs and predictions with the ViennaRNA Package.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2023
    Article
  4. Recent Advances in NMR Protein Structure Prediction with ROSETTA.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Sequence-dependent RNA helix conformational preferences predictably impact tertiary structure formation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors.

Fang-Chieh ChouDepartment of Biochemistry, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
Wipapat KladwangDepartment of Biochemistry, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
Kalli KappelBiophysics Program, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;
Rhiju DasDepartment of Biochemistry, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; Biophysics Program, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305 rhiju@stanford.edu.

Funding

Molecular Biophysics Training Program at StanfordT32GM008294 · NIGMS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI HUANG, KERWYN C. · 1989 to 2019
$7.4M
Non-coding RNA Structure through a Mutate-and-Map StrategyR01GM102519 · NIGMS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI DAS, RHIJU · 2012 to 2016
$1.5M
Correcting Pervasive Errors in RNA Crystallography with RosettaR21GM102716 · NIGMS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI DAS, RHIJU · 2012 to 2013
$302k
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM102519NIGMS NIH HHS R21 GM102716NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008294Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The predictive modeling and design of biologically active RNA molecules requires understanding the energetic balance among their basic components. Rapid developments in computer simulation promise increasingly accurate recovery of RNA's nearest-neighbor (NN) free-energy parameters, but these methods have not been tested in predictive trials or on nonstandard nucleotides. Here, we present, to our knowledge, the first such tests through a RECCES-Rosetta (reweighting of energy-function collection with conformational ensemble sampling in Rosetta) framework that rigorously models conformational entropy, predicts previously unmeasured NN parameters, and estimates these values' systematic uncertainties. RECCES-Rosetta recovers the 10 NN parameters for Watson-Crick stacked base pairs and 32 single-nucleotide dangling-end parameters with unprecedented accuracies: rmsd of 0.28 kcal/mol and 0.41 kcal/mol, respectively. For set-aside test sets, RECCES-Rosetta gives rmsd values of 0.32 kcal/mol on eight stacked pairs involving G-U wobble pairs and 0.99 kcal/mol on seven stacked pairs involving nonstandard isocytidine-isoguanosine pairs. To more rigorously assess RECCES-Rosetta, we carried out four blind predictions for stacked pairs involving 2,6-diaminopurine-U pairs, which achieved 0.64 kcal/mol rmsd accuracy when tested by subsequent experiments. Overall, these results establish that computational methods can now blindly predict energetics of basic RNA motifs, including chemically modified variants, with consistently better than 1 kcal/mol accuracy. Systematic tests indicate that resolving the remaining discrepancies will require energy function improvements beyond simply reweighting component terms, and we propose further blind trials to test such efforts.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBase PairingNucleic Acid ConformationBase SequenceComputational BiologyEntropyModels, ChemicalMolecular StructureNucleotidesRNAThermodynamicsNucleotidesRNAblind predictionensemble predictionRNA helixsimulated temperingthermodynamics

Identifiers

PMID27402765
PMCPMC4968729

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.