Cited by 1RNA and protein synthesis mechanismsProtein Structure and DynamicsGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

Influence of contact map topology on RNA structure prediction

Open access
Faber, Christian, Upadhyay, Utkarsh, Taubert, Oskar, Schug, Alexander·2025·Nucleic Acids Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The available sequence data of RNA molecules have greatly increased in the past years. Unfortunately, while computational power is still under exponential growth, the computer prediction quality from sequence to final structure is still inferior to labour-intensive experimental work. Although a reliable end-to-end procedure has already been developed for proteins since Alphafold2, while its successor AlphaFold3 can also predict RNA, its confidence, in particular for novel sequences and folds, still appears limited. Another strategy entails two steps: (i) predicting potential contacts in the form of a contact map from evolutionary data; and (ii) simulating the molecule with a physical force field while using the contact map as restraint. However, the quality of the structure prediction crucially depends on the quality of the contact map. Until now, only the proportion of true positive contacts was considered as a quality characteristic. We propose to also include the distribution of these contacts, and have done so in our recent studies. We observed that the clustering of contacts, as is common for many artificial intelligence algorithms, has a negative impact on prediction quality. In contrast, a more distributed topology is beneficial. We have applied these findings from computer experiments to current algorithms and introduced a measure of distribution, the Gaussian score.

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 · 10.1093/nar/gkaf1370

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Faber, C., Upadhyay, U., Taubert, O., & Schug, A.
Affiliations
  • Forschungszentrum Jülich (DE)
  • Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (DE)
Corresponding author
Schug, Alexander
Venue
Nucleic Acids Research
Published
2025-11-26
Volume
53
Issue
22
ISSN
  • 0305-1048 (ISSN-L)
  • 1362-4962
OpenAlex
W4417457892
Cited by
1
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
0.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nucleic Acids Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Universitätsbibliographie, Universität Duisburg-Essen (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • John von Neumann Institute for Computing
  • Forschungszentrum Jülich and Helmholtz Association
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
RNA structure prediction, RNA folding, AlphaFold3
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Models, Molecular, Nucleic Acid Conformation, RNA

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