2023•PLoS ONEOpen access

Comparative analysis of RNA secondary structure accuracy on predicted RNA 3D models

Mandar Kulkarni, Jayaraman Thangappan, Indrajit Deb, Sangwook Wu

Open full text 7 citations

Abstract

RNA structure is conformationally dynamic, and accurate all-atom tertiary (3D) structure modeling of RNA remains challenging with the prevailing tools. Secondary structure (2D) information is the standard prerequisite for most RNA 3D modeling. Despite several 2D and 3D structure prediction tools proposed in recent years, one of the challenges is to choose the best combination for accurate RNA 3D structure prediction. Here, we benchmarked seven small RNA PDB structures (40 to 90 nucleotides) with different topologies to understand the effects of different 2D structure predictions on the accuracy of 3D modeling. The current study explores the blind challenge of 2D to 3D conversions and highlights the performances of de novo RNA 3D modeling from their predicted 2D structure constraints. Our results show that conformational sampling-based methods such as SimRNA and IsRNA1 depend less on 2D accuracy, whereas motif-based methods account for 2D evidence. Our observations illustrate the disparities in available 3D and 2D prediction methods and may further offer insights into developing topology-specific or family-specific RNA structure prediction pipelines.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

RNA structure is conformationally dynamic, and accurate all-atom tertiary (3D) structure modeling of RNA remains challenging with the prevailing tools. Secondary structure (2D) information is the standard prerequisite for most RNA 3D modeling. Despite several 2D and 3D structure prediction tools proposed in recent years, one of the challenges is to choose the best combination for accurate RNA 3D structure prediction. Here, we benchmarked seven small RNA PDB structures (40 to 90 nucleotides) with different topologies to understand the effects of different 2D structure predictions on the accuracy of 3D modeling. The current study explores the blind challenge of 2D to 3D conversions and highlights the performances of de novo RNA 3D modeling from their predicted 2D structure constraints. Our results show that conformational sampling-based methods such as SimRNA and IsRNA1 depend less on 2D accuracy, whereas motif-based methods account for 2D evidence. Our observations illustrate the disparities in available 3D and 2D prediction methods and may further offer insights into developing topology-specific or family-specific RNA structure prediction pipelines.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 7 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

RNA structure is conformationally dynamic, and accurate all-atom tertiary (3D) structure modeling of RNA remains challenging with the prevailing tools. Secondary structure (2D) information is the standard prerequisite for most RNA 3D modeling. Despite several 2D and 3D structure prediction tools proposed in recent years, one of the challenges is to choose the best combination for accurate RNA 3D structure prediction. Here, we benchmarked seven small RNA PDB structures (40 to 90 nucleotides) with different topologies to understand the effects of different 2D structure predictions on the accuracy of 3D modeling. The current study explores the blind challenge of 2D to 3D conversions and highlights the performances of de novo RNA 3D modeling from their predicted 2D structure constraints. Our results show that conformational sampling-based methods such as SimRNA and IsRNA1 depend less on 2D accuracy, whereas motif-based methods account for 2D evidence. Our observations illustrate the disparities in available 3D and 2D prediction methods and may further offer insights into developing topology-specific or family-specific RNA structure prediction pipelines.

Key concepts: RNA, Nucleic acid structure, Nucleic acid secondary structure, Protein secondary structure, Computational biology, Protein Data Bank (RCSB PDB), Computer science, Protein structure prediction

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparative analysis of RNA secondary structure accuracy on predicted RNA 3D models — Research Paper | ScholarLens