以丙型肝炎病毒IRES序列为模型,评估RNA二级结构测定的计算机工具

L. F. Restrepo, J. C. Arroyave, F. Cortés-Mancera
{"title":"以丙型肝炎病毒IRES序列为模型,评估RNA二级结构测定的计算机工具","authors":"L. F. Restrepo, J. C. Arroyave, F. Cortés-Mancera","doi":"10.1109/PAHCE.2013.6568287","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is a key molecule in different cellular processes, including catalysis. These functions depend not only on nucleotide sequences but also of RNA secondary structure (2D) [1]; this is the case of the extensively characterized IRES structure (Internal Ribosome Entry Site) in Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) RNA [2]. Although experimental techniques are available for studying molecular conformation and folding, their high cost limits a more extended use, therefore bioinformatics programs are currently used for RNA 2D prediction. How dissimilar methods are used in most available in silico tools [3-7] we evaluated the accuracy of five programs for RNA secondary structure prediction, using a HCV IRES domain II as a model [8]. Among assessed tools, MATLAB v7.10.0TM did not generate the expected shape for HCV domain II, resulting in the lowest Sensitivity (S) and Predictive Positive (PPV) values, while RNAShape 2.1.6, RNAstructure v 5.4 and Assemble 1.0.4 predicted the same topology, failing in pairings C19/G62 and G24/A56. Finally, Assemble 2.0 predicted the most acceptable topology of domain II, with the highest S and PPV values. Conclusion: None of the five programs could totally predict the topology of the structural model used.","PeriodicalId":151015,"journal":{"name":"2013 Pan American Health Care Exchanges (PAHCE)","volume":"79 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of in silico tools for RNA secondary structures determination, using the Hepatitis C Virus IRES sequence as a model\",\"authors\":\"L. F. Restrepo, J. C. Arroyave, F. Cortés-Mancera\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/PAHCE.2013.6568287\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is a key molecule in different cellular processes, including catalysis. These functions depend not only on nucleotide sequences but also of RNA secondary structure (2D) [1]; this is the case of the extensively characterized IRES structure (Internal Ribosome Entry Site) in Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) RNA [2]. Although experimental techniques are available for studying molecular conformation and folding, their high cost limits a more extended use, therefore bioinformatics programs are currently used for RNA 2D prediction. How dissimilar methods are used in most available in silico tools [3-7] we evaluated the accuracy of five programs for RNA secondary structure prediction, using a HCV IRES domain II as a model [8]. Among assessed tools, MATLAB v7.10.0TM did not generate the expected shape for HCV domain II, resulting in the lowest Sensitivity (S) and Predictive Positive (PPV) values, while RNAShape 2.1.6, RNAstructure v 5.4 and Assemble 1.0.4 predicted the same topology, failing in pairings C19/G62 and G24/A56. Finally, Assemble 2.0 predicted the most acceptable topology of domain II, with the highest S and PPV values. Conclusion: None of the five programs could totally predict the topology of the structural model used.\",\"PeriodicalId\":151015,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2013 Pan American Health Care Exchanges (PAHCE)\",\"volume\":\"79 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2013 Pan American Health Care Exchanges (PAHCE)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/PAHCE.2013.6568287\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2013 Pan American Health Care Exchanges (PAHCE)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/PAHCE.2013.6568287","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

核糖核酸(RNA)是包括催化在内的不同细胞过程中的关键分子。这些功能不仅取决于核苷酸序列,还取决于RNA二级结构(2D) [1];这就是丙型肝炎病毒(HCV) RNA中广泛表征的IRES结构(内部核糖体进入位点)的情况[2]。虽然实验技术可用于研究分子构象和折叠,但其高成本限制了更广泛的应用,因此生物信息学程序目前用于RNA 2D预测。在大多数可用的计算机工具中使用不同的方法[3-7],我们使用HCV IRES结构域II作为模型,评估了五个RNA二级结构预测程序的准确性[8]。在被评估的工具中,MATLAB v7.10.0TM没有生成HCV结构域II的预期形状,导致灵敏度(S)和预测阳性(PPV)值最低,而RNAShape 2.1.6、RNAstructure v 5.4和Assemble 1.0.4预测相同的拓扑结构,在C19/G62和G24/A56配对中失败。最后,Assemble 2.0预测了域II的最可接受拓扑,具有最高的S和PPV值。结论:五种程序均不能完全预测所使用结构模型的拓扑结构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of in silico tools for RNA secondary structures determination, using the Hepatitis C Virus IRES sequence as a model
The Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is a key molecule in different cellular processes, including catalysis. These functions depend not only on nucleotide sequences but also of RNA secondary structure (2D) [1]; this is the case of the extensively characterized IRES structure (Internal Ribosome Entry Site) in Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) RNA [2]. Although experimental techniques are available for studying molecular conformation and folding, their high cost limits a more extended use, therefore bioinformatics programs are currently used for RNA 2D prediction. How dissimilar methods are used in most available in silico tools [3-7] we evaluated the accuracy of five programs for RNA secondary structure prediction, using a HCV IRES domain II as a model [8]. Among assessed tools, MATLAB v7.10.0TM did not generate the expected shape for HCV domain II, resulting in the lowest Sensitivity (S) and Predictive Positive (PPV) values, while RNAShape 2.1.6, RNAstructure v 5.4 and Assemble 1.0.4 predicted the same topology, failing in pairings C19/G62 and G24/A56. Finally, Assemble 2.0 predicted the most acceptable topology of domain II, with the highest S and PPV values. Conclusion: None of the five programs could totally predict the topology of the structural model used.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信