↓ Skip to main content

Transat—A Method for Detecting the Conserved Helices of Functional RNA Structures, Including Transient, Pseudo-Knotted and Alternative Structures

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, June 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Transat—A Method for Detecting the Conserved Helices of Functional RNA Structures, Including Transient, Pseudo-Knotted and Alternative Structures
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, June 2010
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000823
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas J. P. Wiebe, Irmtraud M. Meyer

Abstract

The prediction of functional RNA structures has attracted increased interest, as it allows us to study the potential functional roles of many genes. RNA structure prediction methods, however, assume that there is a unique functional RNA structure and also do not predict functional features required for in vivo folding. In order to understand how functional RNA structures form in vivo, we require sophisticated experiments or reliable prediction methods. So far, there exist only a few, experimentally validated transient RNA structures. On the computational side, there exist several computer programs which aim to predict the co-transcriptional folding pathway in vivo, but these make a range of simplifying assumptions and do not capture all features known to influence RNA folding in vivo. We want to investigate if evolutionarily related RNA genes fold in a similar way in vivo. To this end, we have developed a new computational method, Transat, which detects conserved helices of high statistical significance. We introduce the method, present a comprehensive performance evaluation and show that Transat is able to predict the structural features of known reference structures including pseudo-knotted ones as well as those of known alternative structural configurations. Transat can also identify unstructured sub-sequences bound by other molecules and provides evidence for new helices which may define folding pathways, supporting the notion that homologous RNA sequence not only assume a similar reference RNA structure, but also fold similarly. Finally, we show that the structural features predicted by Transat differ from those assuming thermodynamic equilibrium. Unlike the existing methods for predicting folding pathways, our method works in a comparative way. This has the disadvantage of not being able to predict features as function of time, but has the considerable advantage of highlighting conserved features and of not requiring a detailed knowledge of the cellular environment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 6%
Australia 1 2%
India 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Poland 1 2%
Unknown 44 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 35%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 27%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Master 3 6%
Professor 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 9 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 23%
Computer Science 5 10%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 10 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 July 2012.
All research outputs
#21,011,157
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#8,282
of 9,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,483
of 105,609 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#43
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 105,609 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.