4.4 Article

Improved RNA secondary structure prediction by maximizing expected pair accuracy

Journal

RNA
Volume 15, Issue 10, Pages 1805-1813

Publisher

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1261/rna.1643609

Keywords

RNA secondary structure; free energy minimization; partition function; nearest-neighbor model

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01GM076485]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Free energy minimization has been the most popular method for RNA secondary structure prediction for decades. It is based on a set of empirical free energy change parameters derived from experiments using a nearest-neighbor model. In this study, a program, MaxExpect, that predicts RNA secondary structure by maximizing the expected base-pair accuracy, is reported. This approach was first pioneered in the program CONTRAfold, using pair probabilities predicted with a statistical learning method. Here, a partition function calculation that utilizes the free energy change nearest-neighbor parameters is used to predict base-pair probabilities as well as probabilities of nucleotides being single-stranded. MaxExpect predicts both the optimal structure (having highest expected pair accuracy) and suboptimal structures to serve as alternative hypotheses for the structure. Tested on a large database of different types of RNA, the maximum expected accuracy structures are, on average, of higher accuracy than minimum free energy structures. Accuracy is measured by sensitivity, the percentage of known base pairs correctly predicted, and positive predictive value (PPV), the percentage of predicted pairs that are in the known structure. By favoring double-strandedness or single-strandedness, a higher sensitivity or PPV of prediction can be favored, respectively. Using MaxExpect, the average PPV of optimal structure is improved from 66% to 68% at the same sensitivity level (73%) compared with free energy minimization.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available