ArticleRNA biology2026
Crosstalk between RNA secondary and three-dimensional structure prediction: a comprehensive study.
Article in RNA biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Crosstalk between RNA secondary and three-dimensional structure prediction: a comprehensive study.RNA biology · 2026Article
- Exploring Secondary Structure Predictions for RNA-Targeted Drug Discovery: Power and Challenges.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, various computational methods have been developed to predict the three-dimensional (3D) structures of RNAs. Due to its hierarchical folding property, RNA secondary (2D) structure is often used as input for 3D structure prediction to improve accuracy and efficiency. However, the extent to which the accuracy of input 2D structure affects the performance of 3D structure prediction remains to be further investigated. Additionally, whether and how the input base-pairing interactions are modified during the 3D structure modelling process is another question worth exploring. To address these issues, here we comprehensively benchmark six representative 3D structure prediction models on extensive datasets, using 2D structures of varied accuracies as input. Our results indicate that there is a pervasive crosstalk between RNA 2D and 3D structure predictions, where the performance dependence of 3D structure prediction on the accuracy of input 2D structure is closely associated with the 3D model's ability to modify the input base-pairing interactions during structure modelling. Furthermore, we also observed that RNA 3D structure prediction performance is more sensitive to the occurrence of false positive base pairs in the input 2D structure than to true positive base pairs, suggesting a worthy direction to further improve the model performance.
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.