Nucleic acid structure prediction

This article is about the computational prediction of nucleic acid structure. For experimental methods, see Nucleic acid structure determination.

Nucleic acid structure prediction is a computational method to determine secondary and tertiary nucleic acid structure from its sequence. Secondary structure can be predicted from one or several nucleic acid sequences. Tertiary structure can be predicted from the sequence, or by comparative modeling (when the structure of a homologous sequence is known).

The problem of predicting nucleic acid secondary structure is dependent mainly on base pairing and base stacking interactions; many molecules have several possible three-dimensional structures, so predicting these structures remains out of reach unless obvious sequence and functional similarity to a known class of nucleic acid molecules, such as transfer RNA (tRNA) or microRNA (miRNA), is observed. Many secondary structure prediction methods rely on variations of dynamic programming and therefore are unable to efficiently identify pseudoknots.

While the methods are similar, there are slight differences in the approaches to RNA and DNA structure prediction. In vivo , DNA structures are more likely to be duplexes with full complementarity between two strands, while RNA structures are more likely to fold into complex secondary and tertiary structures such as in the ribosome, spliceosome, or transfer RNA. This is partly because the extra oxygen in RNA increases the propensity for hydrogen bonding in the nucleic acid backbone. The energy parameters are also different for the two nucleic acids. The structure prediction methods can follow a completely theoretical approach, or a hybrid one incorporating experimental data. ^{[1] [2]}

Single sequence structure prediction

A common problem for researchers working with RNA is to determine the three-dimensional structure of the molecule given only a nucleic acid sequence. However, in the case of RNA much of the final structure is determined by the secondary structure or intra-molecular base pairing interactions of the molecule. This is shown by the high conservation of base pairings across diverse species.

Thermodynamic models

Main article: Nucleic acid thermodynamics § Expanded neighbor models

Secondary structure of small RNA molecules is largely determined by strong, local interactions such as hydrogen bonds and base stacking. Summing the free energy for such interactions should provide an approximation for the stability of a given structure. To predict the folding free energy of a given secondary structure, an empirical nearest-neighbor model is used. In the nearest neighbor model the free energy change for each motif depends on the sequence of the motif and of its closest base-pairs. (The "neighbor" aspect allows for describing the base stacking energy.) The energy of fragments are added together to get the total free energy. The structure with the minimal free energy (MFE) is the most stable. ^[3]

Examples of RNA models include:

• Turner 1999 ^[4] and Turner 2004. ^[5]
• Andronescu 2007 parameters for RNA with any of the four canonical bases. This is derived from earlier wet lab experiments and from other forms of RNA structure data. ^{[6] [7]}
• Langdon 2018 parameters for RNA with any of the four canonical bases. ^[8]

As of 2020, most software packages default to Turner 2004. A 2020 benchmark shows that Turner 2004 is the worst of the four for RNA-RNA interaction tasks, with the best (Andronescu 2007) outperforming it by 5 pairs. It is known that Langdon 2018 is the best for structure prediction. ^[9]

The most stable structure

The simplest way to find the MFE structure would be to generate all possible structures and calculate the free energy for it, but the number of possible structures for a sequence increases exponentially with the length of RNA: number of secondary structures = (1,8)N, N- number of nucleotides. ^[10] For longer molecules, the number of possible secondary structures is huge: a sequence of 100 nucleotides has more than 10²⁵ possible secondary structures. This calls for smarter methods. ^[3]

Dynamic programming algorithms

Most popular methods for predicting RNA and DNA's secondary structure involve dynamic programming. ^{[11] [12]} One of the early attempts at predicting RNA secondary structure was made by Ruth Nussinov and co-workers who developed a dynamic programming-based algorithm that maximized the length and number of a series of "blocks" (polynucleotide chains). ^[11] Each "block" required at least two nucleotides, which reduced the algorithm's storage requirements over single base-matching approaches. ^[11] Nussinov et al. later published an adapted approach with improved performance that increased the RNA size limit to ~1,000 bases by folding increasingly sized subsections while storing the results of prior folds, now known as the Nussinov algorithm. ^[12] In 1981, Michael Zuker and Patrick Stiegler proposed a refined approach with performance comparable to Nussinov et al.'s solution but with the additional ability to find also find "suboptimal" secondary structures. ^[13]

Dynamic programming algorithms provide a means to implicitly check all variants of possible RNA secondary structures without explicitly generating the structures. First, the lowest conformational free energy is determined for each possible sequence fragment starting with the shortest fragments and then for longer fragments. For longer fragments, recursion on the optimal free energy changes determined for shorter sequences speeds the determination of the lowest folding free energy. Once the lowest free energy of the complete sequence is calculated, the exact structure of RNA molecule is determined. ^[3]

Dynamic programming algorithms are commonly used to detect base pairing patterns that are "well-nested", that is, form hydrogen bonds only to bases that do not overlap one another in sequence position. Secondary structures that fall into this category include double helices, stem-loops, and variants of the "cloverleaf" pattern found in transfer RNA molecules. These methods rely on pre-calculated parameters which estimate the free energy associated with certain types of base-pairing interactions, including Watson-Crick and Hoogsteen base pairs. Depending on the complexity of the method, single base pairs may be considered, and short two- or three-base segments, to incorporate the effects of base stacking. This method cannot identify pseudoknots, which are not well nested, without substantial algorithmic modifications that are computationally very costly. ^[14]

Predicting pseudoknots

One of the issues when predicting RNA secondary structure is that the standard free energy minimization and statistical sampling methods can not find pseudoknots. ^[4] The major problem is that the usual dynamic programing algorithms, when predicting secondary structure, consider only the interactions between the closest nucleotides, while pseudoknotted structures are formed due to interactions between distant nucleotides. Rivas and Eddy published a dynamic programming algorithm for predicting pseudoknots. ^[14] However, this dynamic programming algorithm is very slow. The standard dynamic programming algorithm for free energy minimization scales O(N³) in time (N is the number of nucleotides in the sequence), while the Rivas and Eddy algorithm scales O(N⁶) in time. This has prompted several researchers to implement versions of the algorithm that restrict classes of pseudoknots, resulting in performance gains. For example, pknotsRG tool includes only the class of simple recursive pseudoknots and scales O(N4) in time. ^[15]

The general problem of pseudoknot prediction has been shown to be NP-complete. ^[16]

Suboptimal structures

S. cerevisiae tRNA structure space, where the true biological structure is not the one with MFE, mainly due to the presence of many modified bases. The energies and structures were calculated using RNAsubopt and the structure distances computed using RNAdistance from ViennaRNA 1.x. The Bos taurus tRNA is in a similar situation, but the correct structure can be recovered as the MFE given appropriate corrections for modified bases (ViennaRNA 2.6.0 of 2023).

The accuracy of RNA secondary structure prediction from one sequence by free energy minimization is limited by several factors:

1. The free energy value list in a nearest neighbor model may be incomplete or inaccurate.
2. Not all known RNA folds in such a way as to conform with the thermodynamic minimum.
3. Some RNA sequences have more than one biologically active conformation (i.e., riboswitches).
4. Modified bases are often assumed to fold in the same way as the unmodified version, but they actually have differences ranging from subtle (free energies changes on the order of 0.5 kcal/mol) to major (modification physcally blocks hydrogen bond from forming). ^[17]

For this reason, the ability to predict structures which have similar low free energy can provide significant information. Such structures are termed suboptimal structures. MFOLD is one program that generates suboptimal structures. ^[18]

A collection of structures can be represented by a "dot plot", a visualization of a square matrix containing the frequency of two bases being paired. This is essentially a type of heat map.

Boltzmann ensemble

A collection of possible structures forms an ensemble. By sampling from the ensemble according to the Boltzmann distribution (as exemplified by the program SFOLD), many possible structures can be returned. ^{[19] [20]}

The states in an Boltzmann ensemble can also be represented by a "dot plot", with magnitudes being the probability of finding any two base being paired in the ensemble. These magnitudes implicitly represent thermodynamic data as well.

Comparative secondary structure prediction

Multiple evolutionarily related RNA sequences share patterns of covariation between sites. If two sites are often seen changing in sync, there is a high possibility that there is a structurally required hydrogen bond between those positions. This offers an additional source of information for what the true structure could look like. ^[16]

In general, the problem of alignment and consensus structure prediction are closely related. A few different approaches to the prediction of consensus structures can be distinguished: ^{[21] [22]}

1. Folding of alignment
2. Alignment of singular predicted structures, in some cases jointly with sequence alignment
3. Simultaneous alignment of sequence and ensembles of predicted structures

Each of these steps can also be mixed and matched in an iterative fashion. ^[22]

Align then fold

A practical heuristic approach is to use multiple sequence alignment tools to produce an alignment of several RNA sequences, to find consensus sequence and then fold it. Covariation can be extracted from a multiple sequence alignment of multiple homologous RNA sequences with related but dissimilar sequences. The quality of the alignment determines the accuracy of the consensus structure model. Consensus sequences are folded using various approaches similarly as in individual structure prediction problem:

• Pfold implements SCFGs. Covariation is converted into a "dot plot" of base pair probabilities, which is considered on top of the usual single-sequence version of Pfold. ^[23]
• RNAalifold from the Vienna suite is essentially an alignment-based variant of RNAfold from the same suite. Both use a thermodynamic folding approach and can run in two modes: a MFE (minimum free energy) mode, which returns a single structure, and a partitioning mode, which gives several possible structures. ^[24] The score of a consensus structure is a combination of average thermodynamic energies and extra points derived from co-variation. ^[22]
  • A linear-time variant is found as LinearAlifold. ^[25]
• ILM (iterated loop matching) uses combination of thermodynamics and mutual information (covariance) content scores. Like suggested in its name, it is based on Nussinov style loop-matching between predicted structures. In each iteration, a "best" helix/stem is found in the predicted secondary structure and the rest of the structure is folded again. This allows the prediction of pseudoknoted structures. ^[26]

Fold single then align/joint-align

Evolution frequently preserves functional RNA structure better than RNA sequence. ^[24] Hence, a common biological problem is to infer a common structure for two or more highly diverged but homologous RNA sequences. Sequence alignments become unsuitable and do not help to improve the accuracy of structure prediction when sequence similarity of two sequences is less than 50%. This calls for an approach that combines alignment and secondary structure prediction. ^[22]

The obvious approach to combine alignment and secondary structure prediction would be to fold the sequences using single-sequence structure prediction methods and align the resulting structures. Alignment of two structures is usually done by parsing the two structures into trees and then trying to find the minimum edit distance between the two trees. ^[27] This method runs fairly quickly even when a joint sequence-structure alignment is performed and gives results better than starting from a fixed, unchanging, potentially incorrect alignment. ^[28] It

Fold dot-plots then joint align

The use of singular structures and tree comparison still has it weaknesses. It is well-known that the true (physiological) structure is often not the minimum free energy structure. It is also found that tree-editing has limited ability to repair mispairings. These problems call for yet another type of approach, one that compares whole ensembles of possible structures.

There is an existing representation of ensembles of possible structures already: the dot plot, which remains useful here. To align two sequences while considering ensemble structures, each sequence first has its base-pair probability dot plot predicted. The problem then becomes joint alignment of sequences and dot plots; the prototypic algorithm for this problem is the Sankoff algorithm, ^[29] basically a merger of sequence alignment and Nussinov (maximal-pairing) ^[11] folding dynamic programming method. ^[30] The original Sankoff algorithm is a theoretical exercise because it requires extreme computational resources (O^(n3m) in time, and O^(n2m) in space, where n is the sequence length and m is the number of sequences).

Some notable attempts at implementing restricted versions of Sankoff's algorithm are Foldalign, ^{[31] [32]} Dynalign, ^{[33] [34]} PMmulti/PMcomp, ^[30] Stemloc, ^[35] Murlet, ^[36] and LocARNA-P. ^[37] These implementations are practical to run, but impose additional limits on properties such as the maximal length of alignment or variants of possible consensus structures. For example, Foldalign focuses on local alignments and restricts the possible length of the sequences alignment.

A different approach to joint alignment is used in CARNA to allow for more possible arrangements of base pairs such as pseudoknots or multiple stable structures. This is a MAX-SNP-hard problem, but constraint programming and hard limits keep the runtime practical. ^[38]

No matter which joint alignment method is used, they only deal with two sequences (or two pre-aligned groups of sequences) at a time. This is solved by ordinary iterative alignment with a guide tree.

Tertiary structure prediction

Once secondary structure of RNA is known, the next challenge is to predict tertiary structure. The biggest problem is to determine the structure of regions between double stranded helical regions. Also RNA molecules often contain posttranscriptionally modified nucleosides, which because of new possible non-canonical interactions, cause a lot of troubles for tertiary structure prediction. ^{[39] [40] [41] [42]}

In the comparative approach, a related known structure is extracted from a database (e.g. the PDB for 3D structures). This structure is used as a template, onto which the sequence in question is grafted and adjusted. ^[43]

In the de novo or ab initio approach, no known 3D structures are used. The first step would be to predict the secondary structure using one of the approaches described above. ^[44] The secondary structure is then converted into fragments of 3D structures and joined together to form starting points for further refinement:

• The more obvious method is to represent the temporary 3D structure using an all-atom representation containing the coordinates of every atom in 3D space. ^[45] The free energy of such a structure can be improved using existing physics-based methods such as molecular dynamics ^[46] or an RNA-specific random sampling of the conformational landscape ^[47] followed by screening with a statistical potential for scoring. ^[48]
• All-atom structures take a lot of memory to store and a lot of computation power to improve. A coarse-grained representation can be used first to bring the structure closer to the true shape ^[49] before entering the high-resolution (all-atom) refinement stage, reducing the amount of work needed to be done in the high-resolution step. ^[50]

As with the problem of protein folding, machine learning (ML) has also been used to find and make use of higher-order relationships between the RNA sequence and the 2D or 3D structure. They outperform traditional methods in predicting the global RNA fold, but traditional (non-ML) methods still have an advantage in modeling intramolecular interactions and ligand binding sites as of 2024. ^[51]

See also

• RNA
• RNA structure
• Non-coding RNA
• List of RNA structure prediction software
• Comparison of nucleic acid simulation software
• Comparison of software for molecular mechanics modeling

References

1. Ponce-Salvatierra, Almudena; Astha; Merdas, Katarzyna; Chandran, Nithin; Ghosh, Pritha; Mukherjee, Sunandan; Bujnicki, Janusz M (2019-01-22). "Computational modeling of RNA 3D structure based on experimental data". Bioscience Reports. 39 (2): BSR20180430. doi:10.1042/bsr20180430. ISSN   0144-8463. PMC   6367127 . PMID   30670629.
2. Magnus, Marcin; Matelska, Dorota; Łach, Grzegorz; Chojnowski, Grzegorz; Boniecki, Michal J; Purta, Elzbieta; Dawson, Wayne; Dunin-Horkawicz, Stanislaw; Bujnicki, Janusz M (2014-04-23). "Computational modeling of RNA 3D structures, with the aid of experimental restraints". RNA Biology. 11 (5): 522–536. doi:10.4161/rna.28826. ISSN   1547-6286. PMC   4152360 . PMID   24785264.
3. Mathews D.H. (2006). "Revolutions in RNA secondary structure prediction". J. Mol. Biol. 359 (3): 526–532. doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2006.01.067. PMID   16500677.
4. Mathews DH, Sabina J, Zuker M, Turner DH (1999). "Expanded sequence dependence of thermodynamic parameters improves prediction of RNA secondary structure". J Mol Biol. 288 (5): 911–40. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1999.2700 . PMID   10329189. S2CID   19989405.
5. Mathews DH, Disney MD, Childs JL, Schroeder SJ, Zuker M, Turner DH (2004). "Incorporating chemical modification constraints into a dynamic programming algorithm for prediction of RNA secondary structure". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 101 (19): 7287–7292. Bibcode:2004PNAS..101.7287M. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0401799101 . PMC   409911 . PMID   15123812.
6. Andronescu, M; Condon, A; Hoos, HH; Mathews, DH; Murphy, KP (1 July 2007). "Efficient parameter estimation for RNA secondary structure prediction". Bioinformatics. 23 (13): i19-28. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btm223. PMID   17646296.
7. Chou, Fang-Chieh; Kladwang, Wipapat; Kappel, Kalli; Das, Rhiju (26 July 2016). "Blind tests of RNA nearest-neighbor energy prediction". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 113 (30): 8430–5. Bibcode:2016PNAS..113.8430C. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1523335113 . PMC   4968729 . PMID   27402765.
8. Langdon, William B.; Petke, Justyna; Lorenz, Ronny (2018). "Evolving Better RNAfold Structure Prediction". Genetic Programming. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 10781. pp. 220–236. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-77553-1_14. ISBN   978-3-319-77552-4.
9. Raden, Martin; Müller, Teresa; Mautner, Stefan; Gelhausen, Rick; Backofen, Rolf (December 2020). "The impact of various seed, accessibility and interaction constraints on sRNA target prediction- a systematic assessment". BMC Bioinformatics. 21 (1): 15. doi: 10.1186/s12859-019-3143-4 . PMC   6956497 . PMID   31931703.
10. Zuker M.; Sankoff D. (1984). "RNA secondary structures and their prediction". Bull. Math. Biol. 46 (4): 591–621. doi:10.1016/s0092-8240(84)80062-2 (inactive 19 June 2025). S2CID   189885784.
11. Nussinov R, Piecznik G, Grigg JR and Kleitman DJ (1978) Algorithms for loop matchings. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics.
12. Nussinov R, Jacobson AB (1980). "Fast algorithm for predicting the secondary structure of single-stranded RNA". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 77 (11): 6309–13. Bibcode:1980PNAS...77.6309N. doi: 10.1073/pnas.77.11.6309 . PMC   350273 . PMID   6161375.
13. Zuker M, Stiegler P (1981). "Optimal computer folding of large RNA sequences using thermodynamics and auxiliary information". Nucleic Acids Res. 9 (1): 133–48. doi:10.1093/nar/9.1.133. PMC   326673 . PMID   6163133.
14. Rivas E, Eddy SR (1999). "A dynamic programming algorithm for RNA structure prediction including pseudoknots". J Mol Biol. 285 (5): 2053–68. arXiv: physics/9807048 . doi:10.1006/jmbi.1998.2436. PMID   9925784. S2CID   2228845.
15. Reeder J.; Giegerich R. (2004). "Design, implementation and evaluation of a practical pseudoknot folding algorithm based on thermodynamics". BMC Bioinformatics. 5: 104. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-5-104 . PMC   514697 . PMID   15294028.
16. Lyngsø RB, Pedersen CN (2000). "RNA pseudoknot prediction in energy-based models". J Comput Biol. 7 (3–4): 409–427. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.34.4044 . doi:10.1089/106652700750050862. PMID   11108471.
17. • Varenyk, Yuliia; Spicher, Thomas; Hofacker, Ivo L; Lorenz, Ronny (1 November 2023). "Modified RNAs and predictions with the ViennaRNA Package". Bioinformatics. 39 (11): btad696. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btad696. PMC   10676514 . PMID   37971965.
    • Varenyk, Yuliia (February 13, 2024). The effect of modified nucleotides on RNA structure (PDF). 3th Winterseminar Bled.
18. Zuker M (2003). "Mfold web server for nucleic acid folding and hybridization prediction". Nucleic Acids Research. 31 (13): 3406–3415. doi:10.1093/nar/gkg595. PMC   169194 . PMID   12824337.
19. McCaskill JS (1990). "The equilibrium partition function and base pair binding probabilities for RNA secondary structure". Biopolymers. 29 (6–7): 1105–19. doi:10.1002/bip.360290621. hdl: 11858/00-001M-0000-0013-0DE3-9 . PMID   1695107. S2CID   12629688.
20. Ding Y, Lawrence CE (2003). "A statistical sampling algorithm for RNA secondary structure prediction". Nucleic Acids Res. 31 (24): 7280–301. doi:10.1093/nar/gkg938. PMC   297010 . PMID   14654704.
21. Gardner P.P.; Giegerich, Robert (2004). "A comprehensive comparison of comparative RNA structure prediction approaches". BMC Bioinformatics. 5: 140. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-5-140 . PMC   526219 . PMID   15458580.
22. Bernhart SH, Hofacker IL (2009). "From consensus structure prediction to RNA gene finding". Brief Funct Genomic Proteomic. 8 (6): 461–71. doi: 10.1093/bfgp/elp043 . PMID   19833701.
23. Knudsen B, Hein J (2003). "Pfold: RNA secondary structure prediction using stochastic context-free grammars". Nucleic Acids Res. 31 (13): 3423–8. doi:10.1093/nar/gkg614. PMC   169020 . PMID   12824339.
24. Hofacker IL, Fekete M, Stadler PF (2002). "Secondary structure prediction for aligned RNA sequences". J Mol Biol. 319 (5): 1059–66. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.73.479 . doi:10.1016/S0022-2836(02)00308-X. PMID   12079347.
25. Malik, A; Zhang, L; Gautam, M; Dai, N; Li, S; Zhang, H; Mathews, DH; Huang, L (1 September 2024). "LinearAlifold: Linear-time consensus structure prediction for RNA alignments". Journal of Molecular Biology. 436 (17): 168694. arXiv: 2206.14794 . doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2024.168694. PMC  11377157. PMID   38971557.
26. Ruan, J., Stormo, G.D. & Zhang, W. (2004) ILM: a web server for predicting RNA secondary structures with pseudoknots. Nucleic Acids Research, 32(Web Server issue), W146-149.
27. Shapiro BA and Zhang K (1990) Comparing Multiple RNA Secondary Structures Using Tree Comparisons Computer Applications in the Biosciences, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 309–318.
28. Siebert, S; Backofen, R (15 August 2005). "MARNA: multiple alignment and consensus structure prediction of RNAs based on sequence structure comparisons". Bioinformatics. 21 (16): 3352–9. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bti550. PMID   15972285.
29. Sankoff D (1985). "Simultaneous solution of the RNA folding, alignment and protosequence problems". SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics. 45 (5): 810–825. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.665.4890 . doi:10.1137/0145048.
30. Hofacker IL, Bernhart SH, Stadler PF (2004). "Alignment of RNA base pairing probability matrices". Bioinformatics. 20 (14): 2222–7. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bth229 . PMID   15073017.
31. Havgaard JH, Lyngso RB, Stormo GD, Gorodkin J (2005). "Pairwise local structural alignment of RNA sequences with sequence similarity less than 40%". Bioinformatics. 21 (9): 1815–24. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti279 . PMID   15657094.
32. Torarinsson E, Havgaard JH, Gorodkin J. (2007) Multiple structural alignment and clustering of RNA sequences. Bioinformatics.
33. Mathews DH, Turner DH (2002). "Dynalign: an algorithm for finding the secondary structure common to two RNA sequences". J Mol Biol. 317 (2): 191–203. doi:10.1006/jmbi.2001.5351. PMID   11902836.
34. Harmanci AO, Sharma G, Mathews DH, (2007), Efficient Pairwise RNA Structure Prediction Using Probabilistic Alignment Constraints in Dynalign, BMC Bioinformatics, 8(130).
35. Holmes I. (2005) Accelerated probabilistic inference of RNA structure evolution. BMC Bioinformatics. 2005 Mar 24;6:73.
36. Kiryu H, Tabei Y, Kin T, Asai K (2007). "Murlet: A practical multiple alignment tool for structural RNA sequences". Bioinformatics. 23 (13): 1588–1598. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm146 . PMID   17459961.
37. Will, S; Joshi, T; Hofacker, IL; Stadler, PF; Backofen, R (May 2012). "LocARNA-P: accurate boundary prediction and improved detection of structural RNAs". RNA. 18 (5): 900–14. doi:10.1261/rna.029041.111. PMC   3334699 . PMID   22450757.
38. Sorescu, DA; Möhl, M; Mann, M; Backofen, R; Will, S (July 2012). "CARNA--alignment of RNA structure ensembles". Nucleic Acids Research. 40 (Web Server issue): W49-53. doi:10.1093/nar/gks491. PMC   3394245 . PMID   22689637.
39. Shapiro BA, Yingling YG, Kasprzak W, Bindewald E. (2007) Bridging the gap in RNA structure prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol.
40. Major F, Turcotte M, Gautheret D, Lapalme G, Fillion E, Cedergren R (Sep 1991). "The combination of symbolic and numerical computation for three-dimensional modeling of RNA". Science. 253 (5025): 1255–60. Bibcode:1991Sci...253.1255F. doi:10.1126/science.1716375. PMID   1716375.
41. Major F, Gautheret D, Cedergren R (Oct 1993). "Reproducing the three-dimensional structure of a tRNA molecule from structural constraints". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 90 (20): 9408–12. Bibcode:1993PNAS...90.9408M. doi: 10.1073/pnas.90.20.9408 . PMC   47577 . PMID   8415714.
42. Frellsen J, Moltke I, Thiim M, Mardia KV, Ferkinghoff-Borg J, Hamelryck T (2009). "A probabilistic model of RNA conformational space". PLOS Comput Biol. 5 (6): e1000406. Bibcode:2009PLSCB...5E0406F. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000406 . PMC   2691987 . PMID   19543381.
43. Rother, Magdalena; Rother, Kristian; Puton, Tomasz; Bujnicki, Janusz M. (2011-02-07). "ModeRNA: a tool for comparative modeling of RNA 3D structure". Nucleic Acids Research. 39 (10): 4007–4022. doi:10.1093/nar/gkq1320. ISSN   1362-4962. PMC   3105415 . PMID   21300639.
44. Neocles B Leontis; Eric Westhof, eds. (2012). RNA 3D structure analysis and prediction. Springer. ISBN   9783642257407. OCLC   795570014.
45. Zhao, Chenhan; Xu, Xiaojun; Chen, Shi-Jie (2017), "Predicting RNA Structure with Vfold", Functional Genomics, Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 1654, Springer New York, pp. 3–15, doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-7231-9_1, ISBN   9781493972302, PMC   5762135 , PMID   28986779
46. Vangaveti, Sweta; Ranganathan, Srivathsan V.; Chen, Alan A. (2016-10-04). "Advances in RNA molecular dynamics: a simulator's guide to RNA force fields". Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: RNA. 8 (2): e1396. doi:10.1002/wrna.1396. ISSN   1757-7004. PMID   27704698. S2CID   35501632.
47. Chen, Shi-Jie (June 2008). "RNA Folding: Conformational Statistics, Folding Kinetics, and Ion Electrostatics". Annual Review of Biophysics. 37 (1): 197–214. doi:10.1146/annurev.biophys.37.032807.125957. ISSN   1936-122X. PMC   2473866 . PMID   18573079.
48. Laing, Christian; Schlick, Tamar (June 2011). "Computational approaches to RNA structure prediction, analysis, and design". Current Opinion in Structural Biology. 21 (3): 306–318. doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2011.03.015. ISSN   0959-440X. PMC   3112238 . PMID   21514143.
49. Boniecki, Michal J.; Lach, Grzegorz; Dawson, Wayne K.; Tomala, Konrad; Lukasz, Pawel; Soltysinski, Tomasz; Rother, Kristian M.; Bujnicki, Janusz M. (2015-12-19). "SimRNA: a coarse-grained method for RNA folding simulations and 3D structure prediction". Nucleic Acids Research. 44 (7): e63. doi:10.1093/nar/gkv1479. ISSN   0305-1048. PMC   4838351 . PMID   26687716.
50. Stasiewicz, Juliusz; Mukherjee, Sunandan; Nithin, Chandran; Bujnicki, Janusz M. (2019-03-21). "QRNAS: software tool for refinement of nucleic acid structures". BMC Structural Biology. 19 (1): 5. doi: 10.1186/s12900-019-0103-1 . ISSN   1472-6807. PMC   6429776 . PMID   30898165.
51. Nithin, Chandran; Kmiecik, Sebastian; Błaszczyk, Roman; Nowicka, Julita; Tuszyńska, Irina (2024-06-25). "Comparative analysis of RNA 3D structure prediction methods: towards enhanced modeling of RNA–ligand interactions". Nucleic Acids Research. 52 (13): 7465–7486. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkae541 . ISSN   0305-1048. PMC   11260495 . PMID   38917327.

Further reading

• Baker D, Sali A (2001). "Protein structure prediction and structural genomics". Science. 294 (5540): 93–6. Bibcode:2001Sci...294...93B. doi:10.1126/science.1065659. PMID   11588250. S2CID   7193705.
• Chiu D.K.; Kolodziejczak T. (1991). "Inferring consensus structure from nucleic acid sequences". Comput. Appl. Biosci. 7 (3): 347–352. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/7.3.347. PMID   1913217.
• Do CB, Woods DA, Batzoglou S (2006). "CONTRAfold: RNA secondary structure prediction without physics-based models". Bioinformatics. 22 (14): e90–8. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl246 . PMID   16873527.
• Gutell R.R.; et al. (1992). "Identifying constraints on the higher-order structure of RNA: continued development and application of comparative sequence analysis methods". Nucleic Acids Res. 20 (21): 5785–5795. doi:10.1093/nar/20.21.5785. PMC   334417 . PMID   1454539.
• Leontis NB, Lescoute A, Westhof E (2006). "The building blocks and motifs of RNA architecture". Curr Opin Struct Biol. 16 (3): 279–87. doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2006.05.009. PMC   4857889 . PMID   16713707.
• Lindgreen S, Gardner PP, Krogh A (2006). "Measuring covariation in RNA alignments: physical realism improves information measures". Bioinformatics. 22 (24): 2988–95. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl514 . PMID   17038338.
• Lorenz, Ronny (2014). RNA secondary structure thermodynamics and kinetics. Vienna, Austria: University of Vienna, Dissertation.
• Macke T, Case D (1998). "Modeling Unusual Nucleic Acid Structures". Modeling unusual nucleic acid structures. In Molecular Modeling of Nucleic Acids. Edited by Leontes N, SantaLucia JJ. Washington, DC. ACS Symposium Series. Vol. 682. American Chemical Society. pp. 379–393. doi:10.1021/bk-1998-0682.ch024. ISBN   978-0-8412-3541-0.
• Major F (2003). "Building three-dimensional ribonucleic acid structures". Computing in Science & Engineering. 2003 (5): 44–53. Bibcode:2003CSE.....5e..44M. doi:10.1109/MCISE.2003.1225860. S2CID   17627934.
• Massire C, Westhof E. "MANIP: an interactive tool for modelling RNA". J Mol Graph Model. 1998 (16): 197–205, 255–257.
• Parisien M.; Major F. (2008). "The MC-Fold and MC-Sym pipeline infers RNA structure from sequence data". Nature. 452 (7183): 51–55. Bibcode:2008Natur.452...51P. doi:10.1038/nature06684. PMID   18322526. S2CID   4415777.
• Tuzet, H. & Perriquet, O., 2004. CARNAC: folding families of related RNAs. Nucleic Acids Research, 32(Web Server issue), W142-145.
• Touzet H (2007). "Comparative Analysis of RNA Genes". Comparative Genomics. Methods in Molecular Biology. Vol. 395. pp. 465–474. doi:10.1007/978-1-59745-514-5_29. ISBN   978-1-58829-693-1. PMID   17993692. S2CID   244726.
• Yingling YG, Shapiro BA (2006). "The prediction of the wild-type telomerase RNA pseudoknot structure and the pivotal role of the bulge in its formation". J Mol Graph Model. 25 (2): 261–274. Bibcode:2006JMGM...25..261Y. doi:10.1016/j.jmgm.2006.01.003. PMID   16481205.
• Zwieb C, Muller F (1997). "Three-dimensional comparative modeling of RNA". Nucleic Acids Symp Ser. 36 (36): 69–71. PMID   9478210.
• ModeRNA: A program for comparative RNA modeling