4.8 Article

Incorporating chemical modification constraints into a dynamic programming algorithm for prediction of RNA secondary structure

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0401799101

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDCR NIH HHS [T32 DE007202, T32 DE 07202] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM 22939, GM 54250, T32 GM007356, R01 GM054250, 5T32 GM 07356, R01 GM022939] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A dynamic programming algorithm for prediction of RNA secondary structure has been revised to accommodate folding constraints determined by chemical modification and to include free energy increments for coaxial stacking of helices when they are either adjacent or separated by a single mismatch. Furthermore, free energy parameters are revised to account for recent experimental results for terminal mismatches and hairpin, bulge, internal, and multibranch loops. To demonstrate the applicability of this method, in vivo modification was performed on 5S rRNA in both Escherichia coli and Candida albicans with 1-cyclohexyl-3-(2-morpholinoethyl) carbodiimide metho-p-toluene sulfonate, dimethyl sulfate, and kethoxal. The percentage of known base pairs in the predicted structure increased from 26.3% to 86.8% for the E. coli sequence by using modification constraints. For C albicans, the accuracy remained 87.5% both with and without modification data. On average, for these sequences and a set of 14 sequences with known secondary structure and chemical modification data taken from the literature, accuracy improves from 67% to 76%. This enhancement primarily reflects improvement for three sequences that are predicted with <40% accuracy on the basis of energetics alone. For these sequences, inclusion of chemical modification constraints improves the average accuracy from 28% to 78%. For the 11 sequences with <6% pseudoknotted base pairs, structures predicted with constraints from chemical modification contain on average 84% of known canonical base pairs.

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

4.8
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