Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37656749›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Comparative analysis of RNA secondary structure accuracy on predicted RNA 3D models.

Mandar Kulkarni, Jayaraman Thangappan, Indrajit Deb, Sangwook Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Mandar KulkarniR&D Center, PharmCADD Co. Ltd., Dong-gu, Busan, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-9005-9553
Jayaraman ThangappanR&D Center, PharmCADD Co. Ltd., Dong-gu, Busan, Republic of Korea.
Indrajit DebR&D Center, PharmCADD Co. Ltd., Dong-gu, Busan, Republic of Korea.
Sangwook WuR&D Center, PharmCADD Co. Ltd., Dong-gu, Busan, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-5794-9477

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

RNA structure is conformationally dynamic, and accurate all-atom tertiary (3D) structure modeling of RNA remains challenging with the prevailing tools. Secondary structure (2D) information is the standard prerequisite for most RNA 3D modeling. Despite several 2D and 3D structure prediction tools proposed in recent years, one of the challenges is to choose the best combination for accurate RNA 3D structure prediction. Here, we benchmarked seven small RNA PDB structures (40 to 90 nucleotides) with different topologies to understand the effects of different 2D structure predictions on the accuracy of 3D modeling. The current study explores the blind challenge of 2D to 3D conversions and highlights the performances of de novo RNA 3D modeling from their predicted 2D structure constraints. Our results show that conformational sampling-based methods such as SimRNA and IsRNA1 depend less on 2D accuracy, whereas motif-based methods account for 2D evidence. Our observations illustrate the disparities in available 3D and 2D prediction methods and may further offer insights into developing topology-specific or family-specific RNA structure prediction pipelines.

Indexed as

Family StructureNucleotidesRNANucleotidesRNA

Identifiers

PMID37656749
PMCPMC10473517

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.