rna secondary structure prediction with pseudoknots: contribution of algorithm versus energy model.
Clicks: 146
ID: 170284
2018
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
30.0
/100
146 views
17 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #183 of 234 articles by views in ensaio pesquisa em educação em ciências
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 234 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
RNA is a biopolymer with various applications inside the cell and in biotechnology. Structure of an RNA molecule mainly determines its function and is essential to guide nanostructure design. Since experimental structure determination is time-consuming and expensive, accurate computational prediction of RNA structure is of great importance. Prediction of RNA secondary structure is relatively simpler than its tertiary structure and provides information about its tertiary structure, therefore, RNA secondary structure prediction has received attention in the past decades. Numerous methods with different folding approaches have been developed for RNA secondary structure prediction. While methods for prediction of RNA pseudoknot-free structure (structures with no crossing base pairs) have greatly improved in terms of their accuracy, methods for prediction of RNA pseudoknotted secondary structure (structures with crossing base pairs) still have room for improvement. A long-standing question for improving the prediction accuracy of RNA pseudoknotted secondary structure is whether to focus on the prediction algorithm or the underlying energy model, as there is a trade-off on computational cost of the prediction algorithm versus the generality of the method.The aim of this work is to argue when comparing different methods for RNA pseudoknotted structure prediction, the combination of algorithm and energy model should be considered and a method should not be considered superior or inferior to others if they do not use the same scoring model. We demonstrate that while the folding approach is important in structure prediction, it is not the only important factor in prediction accuracy of a given method as the underlying energy model is also as of great value. Therefore we encourage researchers to pay particular attention in comparing methods with different energy models.
| Reference Key |
jabbari2018plosrna
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Hosna Jabbari;Ian Wark;Carlo Montemagno |
| Journal | ensaio pesquisa em educação em ciências |
| Year | 2018 |
| DOI |
10.1371/journal.pone.0194583
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.