Systematic benchmarking of deep-learning methods for tertiary RNA structure prediction
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764 · see citing works
Landscape and variation of RNA secondary structure across the human transcriptome
Wan, Y., Qu, K., Zhang, Q. C., Flynn, R. A., Manor, O., Ouyang, Z., Zhang, J., Spitale, R. C., Snyder, M. P., Segal, E., et al. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12946 · Cited by 555 · see citing works
New prediction categories in <scp>CASP15</scp>
Kryshtafovych, A., Antczak, M., Szachniuk, M., Zok, T., Kretsch, R. C., Rangan, R., Pham, P., Das, R., Robin, X., Studer, G., et al. (2023) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.26515 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Szikszai, M., Magnus, M., Sanghi, S., Kadyan, S., Bouatta, N., & Rivas, E. (2024) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2024.168552 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Bahai, A., Kwoh, C. K., Mu, Y., & Li, Y.
- Affiliations
- Nanyang Technological University (SG)
- Corresponding author
- Li, Yinghui
- Venue
- PLOS Computational Biology
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2024-12-30
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- e1012715
- ISSN
- 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
- 1553-7358
- PMC
- PMC11723642
- OpenAlex
- W4405917297
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 1.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- new_version (2025-01-10)
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Nanyang Technological University (NTU-ACE2021-07)
- Ministry of Education Singapore (RG33/20)
- 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 › RNA regulation and disease
- Keywords
- RNA tertiary structure prediction, deep learning benchmarking, secondary structure prediction, non-Watson-Crick base pairing, model architecture comparison
- MeSH terms
- Deep Learning, Nucleic Acid Conformation, RNA, Sequence Alignment, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Computational Biology, Benchmarking
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