4.7 Article

Predicting Large RNA-Like Topologies by a Knowledge-Based Clustering Approach

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
卷 428, 期 5, 页码 811-821

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2015.10.009

关键词

RNA secondary structure; RNA atlas; RNA motifs; RNA design; Prediction of RNA-like motifs

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DMS-0201160, CCF-0727001]
  2. National Institutes of Health [GM100469, GM081410]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An analysis and expansion of our resource for classifying, predicting, and designing RNA structures, RAG (RNA-As-Graphs), is presented, with the goal of understanding features of RNA-like and non-RNA-like motifs and exploiting this information for RNA design. RAG was first reported in 2004 for cataloging RNA secondary structure motifs using graph representations. In 2011, the RAG resource was updated with the increased availability of RNA structures and was improved by utilities for analyzing RNA structures, including substructuring and search tools. We also classified RNA structures as graphs up to 10 vertices (similar to 200 nucleotides) into three classes: existing, RNA-like, and non-RNA-like using clustering approaches. Here, we focus on the tree graphs and evaluate the newly founded RNAs since 2011, which also support our refined predictions of RNA-like motifs. We expand the RAG resource for large tree graphs up to 13 vertices (similar to 260 nucleotides), thereby cataloging more than 10 times as many secondary structures. We apply clustering algorithms based on features of RNA secondary structures translated from known tertiary structures to suggest which hypothetical large RNA motifs can be considered RNA-like. The results by the PAM (Partitioning Around Medoids) approach, in particular, reveal good accuracy, with small error for the largest cases. The RAG update here up to 13 vertices offers a useful graph-based tool for exploring RNA motifs and suggesting large RNA motifs for design. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据