Cited by 57RNA and protein synthesis mechanismsProtein Structure and DynamicsRNA Research and Splicing

The four ingredients of single-sequence RNA secondary structure prediction. A unifying perspective

Open access
Rivas, Elena·2013·RNA Biology

Abstract

Any method for RNA secondary structure prediction is determined by four ingredients. The architecture is the choice of features implemented by the model (such as stacked basepairs, loop length distributions, etc.). The architecture determines the number of parameters in the model. The scoring scheme is the nature of those parameters (whether thermodynamic, probabilistic, or weights). The parameterization stands for the specific values assigned to the parameters. These three ingredients are referred to as "the model." The fourth ingredient is the folding algorithms used to predict plausible secondary structures given the model and the sequence of a structural RNA. Here, I make several unifying observations drawn from looking at more than 40 years of methods for RNA secondary structure prediction in the light of this classification. As a final observation, there seems to be a performance ceiling that affects all methods with complex architectures, a ceiling that impacts all scoring schemes with remarkable similarity. This suggests that modeling RNA secondary structure by using intrinsic sequence-based plausible "foldability" will require the incorporation of other forms of information in order to constrain the folding space and to improve prediction accuracy. This could give an advantage to probabilistic scoring systems since a probabilistic framework is a natural platform to incorporate different sources of information into one single inference problem.

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 · 10.4161/rna.24971

Cites

100 of 100 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • SCFGs can represent the RNA folding energy model.

    “SCFGs can be used to represent the RNA folding energy model39.”

    From Algorithm for optimized mRNA design improves stability and immunogenicity (2023) · cites this paper as [39]

    The Architecture and Scoring Scheme sections say that a context-free grammar (CFG) can represent RNA folding methods and can use thermodynamic free-energy scores. But the paper distinguishes CFGs from stochastic CFGs (SCFGs), which use probabilistic scores; it does not say that an SCFG directly represents the thermodynamic energy model. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [14]Markham NR, Zuker M. UNAFold: software for nucleic acid folding and hybriziation. In J. M. Keith, editor, Bioinformatics, Volume II. Structure, Function and Applications, chapter 1, pages 3–31. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, 2008.
  2. [40]Andronescu M. Computational approaches for RNA energy parameter estimation. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada., 2008.
  3. [67]Goodman ND, Mansighka VK, Roy D, Bonawitz K, Tenenbaum JB. Church, a language for generative models. In Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Arlington, Virginia, 2008. AUAI Press.
  4. [70]Kasami T. An efficient recognition and syntax algorithm for context-free algorithms. Technical Report AFCRL-65-758, Air Force Cambridge Research Lab, Bedford, Mass., 1965.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rivas, E.
Affiliations
Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Rivas, Elena
Venue
RNA Biology
Published
2013-07
Volume
10
Issue
7
Pages
1185-1196
ISSN
  • 1547-6286 (ISSN-L)
  • 1555-8584
OpenAlex
W2020546070
Cited by
57
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • RNA Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
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 Research and Splicing
Keywords
RNA secondary structure prediction, single-sequence prediction, model architecture, scoring system, probabilistic scoring, folding algorithm, performance ceiling, foldability, loop length distribution
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Nucleic Acid Conformation, RNA, Software, Computational Biology, RNA Folding

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