ArticleJournal of biomolecular NMR2019
Maximizing accuracy of RNA structure in refinement against residual dipolar couplings.
Article in Journal of biomolecular NMR, 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.
- Critical Assessment of RNA and DNA Structure Predictions via Artificial Intelligence: The Imitation Game.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025Article
- modXNA: A Modular Approach to Parametrization of Modified Nucleic Acids for Use with Amber Force Fields.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2024Article
- Advances in the exact nuclear Overhauser effect 2018-2022.Methods (San Diego, Calif.) · 2022Review
- Conformational heterogeneity of UCAAUC RNA oligonucleotide from molecular dynamics simulations, SAXS, and NMR experiments.RNA (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Article
- Using quantum chemistry to estimate chemical shifts in biomolecules.Biophysical chemistry · 2020Review
- Using All-Atom Potentials to Refine RNA Structure Predictions of SARS-CoV-2 Stem Loops.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Structural information about ribonucleic acid (RNA) is lagging behind that of proteins, in part due to its high charge and conformational variability. Molecular dynamics (MD) has played an important role in describing RNA structure, complementing information from both nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), or X-ray crystallography. We examine the impact of the choice of the empirical force field for RNA structure refinement using cross-validation against residual dipolar couplings (RDCs) as structural accuracy reporter. Four force fields, representing both the state-of-the art in RNA simulation and the most popular selections in NMR structure determination, are compared for a prototypical A-RNA helix. RNA structural accuracy is also evaluated as a function of both density and nature of input NMR data including RDCs, anisotropic chemical shifts, and distance restraints. Our results show a complex interplay between the experimental restraints and the force fields indicating two best-performing choices: high-fidelity refinement in explicit solvent, and the conformational database-derived potentials. Accuracy of RNA models closely tracks the density of 1-bond C-H RDCs, with other data types having beneficial, but smaller effects. At lower RDC density, or when refining against NOEs only, the two selected force fields are capable of accurately describing RNA helices with little or no experimental RDC data, making them available for the higher order structure assembly or better quantification of the intramolecular dynamics. Unrestrained simulations of simple RNA motifs with state-of-the art MD force fields appear to capture the flexibility inherent in nucleic acids while also maintaining a good agreement with the experimental observables.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31049778What 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.