ArticlePLoS computational biology2024
Systematic benchmarking of deep-learning methods for tertiary RNA structure prediction.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Crosstalk between RNA secondary and three-dimensional structure prediction: a comprehensive study.RNA biology · 2026Article
- Hierarchical breakdown of RNA structure prediction in CASP16: from reliable local helices to speculative multimer assembly.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Bridging technical innovation and computational advances in studies of RNA-protein assemblies.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Computational approaches for RNA structure prediction and design.Cell reports. Physical science · 2026Article
- AI-powered mapping of tumor immunity for optimized mRNA vaccine engineering.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
The 3D structure of RNA critically influences its functionality, and understanding this structure is vital for deciphering RNA biology. Experimental methods for determining RNA structures are labour-intensive, expensive, and time-consuming. Computational approaches have emerged as valuable tools, leveraging physics-based-principles and machine learning to predict RNA structures rapidly. Despite advancements, the accuracy of computational methods remains modest, especially when compared to protein structure prediction. Deep learning methods, while successful in protein structure prediction, have shown some promise for RNA structure prediction as well, but face unique challenges. This study systematically benchmarks state-of-the-art deep learning methods for RNA structure prediction across diverse datasets. Our aim is to identify factors influencing performance variation, such as RNA family diversity, sequence length, RNA type, multiple sequence alignment (MSA) quality, and deep learning model architecture. We show that generally ML-based methods perform much better than non-ML methods on most RNA targets, although the performance difference isn't substantial when working with unseen novel or synthetic RNAs. The quality of the MSA and secondary structure prediction both play an important role and most methods aren't able to predict non-Watson-Crick pairs in the RNAs. Overall among the automated 3D RNA structure prediction methods, DeepFoldRNA has the best prediction results followed by DRFold as the second best method. Finally, we also suggest possible mitigations to improve the quality of the prediction for future method development.
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.