Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,622

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 81 of the 81 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Incorporating chemical modification constraints into a dynamic programming algorithm for prediction of RNA secondary structure

Open access
Mathews, David H., Disney, Matthew D., Childs, Jessica L., Schroeder, Susan J., Zuker, Michael, Turner, Douglas H.·2004·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

A dynamic programming algorithm for prediction of RNA secondary structure has been revised to accommodate folding constraints determined by chemical modification and to include free energy increments for coaxial stacking of helices when they are either adjacent or separated by a single mismatch. Furthermore, free energy parameters are revised to account for recent experimental results for terminal mismatches and hairpin, bulge, internal, and multibranch loops. To demonstrate the applicability of this method, in vivo modification was performed on 5S rRNA in both Escherichia coli and Candida albicans with 1-cyclohexyl-3-(2-morpholinoethyl) carbodiimide metho- p -toluene sulfonate, dimethyl sulfate, and kethoxal. The percentage of known base pairs in the predicted structure increased from 26.3% to 86.8% for the E. coli sequence by using modification constraints. For C. albicans , the accuracy remained 87.5% both with and without modification data. On average, for these sequences and a set of 14 sequences with known secondary structure and chemical modification data taken from the literature, accuracy improves from 67% to 76%. This enhancement primarily reflects improvement for three sequences that are predicted with <40% accuracy on the basis of energetics alone. For these sequences, inclusion of chemical modification constraints improves the average accuracy from 28% to 78%. For the 11 sequences with <6% pseudoknotted base pairs, structures predicted with constraints from chemical modification contain on average 84% of known canonical base pairs.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0401799101

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 81 references

Cited by

See all 1,622

Metadata

Authors
Mathews, D. H., Disney, M. D., Childs, J. L., Schroeder, S. J., Zuker, M., & Turner, D. H.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2004-05-03
Volume
101
Issue
19
Pages
7287-7292
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2004945910
Cited by
1,622
References
81
FWCI
18.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Incorporating chemical modification constraints into a dynamic programming algorithm for prediction of RNA secondary structure. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0401799101
The paper
Mathews, D. H., Disney, M. D., Childs, J. L., Schroeder, S. J., Zuker, M., & Turner, D. H. (2004). Incorporating chemical modification constraints into a dynamic programming algorithm for prediction of RNA secondary structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0401799101

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.