4.3 Article

RNA target highlights in CASP15: Evaluation of predicted models by structure providers

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/prot.26550

Keywords

CASP; community-wide experiment; cryo-EM; RNA folding; RNA structure prediction; x-ray crystallography

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The success of the first RNA category of the Critical Assessment of Techniques for Structure Prediction competition relied on experimental structures provided by scientists. In this article, these scientists offer a unique and valuable analysis of the predicted models, highlighting areas for improvement. All 10 RNA-only targets showed predicted structures similar to experimental ones. The prediction of RNA-protein complexes remains the biggest challenge, and considering ensemble models for flexible RNAs is proposed.
The first RNA category of the Critical Assessment of Techniques for Structure Prediction competition was only made possible because of the scientists who provided experimental structures to challenge the predictors. In this article, these scientists offer a unique and valuable analysis of both the successes and areas for improvement in the predicted models. All 10 RNA-only targets yielded predictions topologically similar to experimentally determined structures. For one target, experimentalists were able to phase their x-ray diffraction data by molecular replacement, showing a potential application of structure predictions for RNA structural biologists. Recommended areas for improvement include: enhancing the accuracy in local interaction predictions and increased consideration of the experimental conditions such as multimerization, structure determination method, and time along folding pathways. The prediction of RNA-protein complexes remains the most significant challenge. Finally, given the intrinsic flexibility of many RNAs, we propose the consideration of ensemble models.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available