ArticleProteins2019
Partner-specific prediction of RNA-binding residues in proteins: A critical assessment.
Article in Proteins, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- NAT10 and ac4C modification in cancer immunity and metabolism: emerging mechanisms and therapeutic potential.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Twenty years of advances in prediction of nucleic acid-binding residues in protein sequences.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Review
- MetaScore: A Novel Machine-Learning-Based Approach to Improve Traditional Scoring Functions for Scoring Protein-Protein Docking Conformations.Biomolecules · 2023Article
- Comprehensive Survey and Comparative Assessment of RNA-Binding Residue Predictions with Analysis by RNA Type.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- ProbeRating: a recommender system to infer binding profiles for nucleic acid-binding proteins.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- Partner-specific prediction of RNA-binding residues in proteins: A critical assessment.Proteins · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
RNA-protein interactions play essential roles in regulating gene expression. While some RNA-protein interactions are "specific", that is, the RNA-binding proteins preferentially bind to particular RNA sequence or structural motifs, others are "non-RNA specific." Deciphering the protein-RNA recognition code is essential for comprehending the functional implications of these interactions and for developing new therapies for many diseases. Because of the high cost of experimental determination of protein-RNA interfaces, there is a need for computational methods to identify RNA-binding residues in proteins. While most of the existing computational methods for predicting RNA-binding residues in RNA-binding proteins are oblivious to the characteristics of the partner RNA, there is growing interest in methods for partner-specific prediction of RNA binding sites in proteins. In this work, we assess the performance of two recently published partner-specific protein-RNA interface prediction tools, PS-PRIP, and PRIdictor, along with our own new tools. Specifically, we introduce a novel metric, RNA-specificity metric (RSM), for quantifying the RNA-specificity of the RNA binding residues predicted by such tools. Our results show that the RNA-binding residues predicted by previously published methods are oblivious to the characteristics of the putative RNA binding partner. Moreover, when evaluated using partner-agnostic metrics, RNA partner-specific methods are outperformed by the state-of-the-art partner-agnostic methods. We conjecture that either (a) the protein-RNA complexes in PDB are not representative of the protein-RNA interactions in nature, or (b) the current methods for partner-specific prediction of RNA-binding residues in proteins fail to account for the differences in RNA partner-specific versus partner-agnostic protein-RNA interactions, or both.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.