4.8 Article

Using sequence signatures and kink-turn motifs in knowledge-based statistical potentials for RNA structure prediction

Journal

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
Volume 45, Issue 9, Pages 5414-5422

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkx045

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of General Medical Sciences
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [GM100469, GM081410]
  3. NIH

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Kink turns are widely occurring motifs in RNA, located in internal loops and associated with many biological functions including translation, regulation and splicing. The associated sequence pattern, a 3-nt bulge and G-A, A-G base-pairs, generates an angle of similar to 50 degrees along the helical axis due to A-minor interactions. The conserved sequence and distinct secondary structures of kink-turns (k-turn) suggest computational folding rules to predict k-turn-like topologies from sequence. Here, we annotate observed k-turn motifs within a non-redundant RNA dataset based on sequence signatures and geometrical features, analyze bending and torsion angles, and determine distinct knowledge-based potentials with and without k-turn motifs. We apply these scoring potentials to our RAGTOP (RNA-As-Graph-Topologies) graph sampling protocol to construct and sample coarse-grained graph representations of RNAs from a given secondary structure. We present graph-sampling results for 35 RNAs, including 12 k-turn and 23 non k-turn internal loops, and compare the results to solved structures and to RAGTOP results without special k-turn potentials. Significant improvements are observed with the updated scoring potentials compared to the k-turn-free potentials. Because k-turns represent a classic example of sequence/structure motif, our study suggests that other such motifs with sequence signatures and unique geometrical features can similarly be utilized for RNA structure prediction and design.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available