↓ Skip to main content

RNA inverse folding using Monte Carlo tree search

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
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
RNA inverse folding using Monte Carlo tree search
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1882-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiufeng Yang, Kazuki Yoshizoe, Akito Taneda, Koji Tsuda

Abstract

Artificially synthesized RNA molecules provide important ways for creating a variety of novel functional molecules. State-of-the-art RNA inverse folding algorithms can design simple and short RNA sequences of specific GC content, that fold into the target RNA structure. However, their performance is not satisfactory in complicated cases. We present a new inverse folding algorithm called MCTS-RNA, which uses Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS), a technique that has shown exceptional performance in Computer Go recently, to represent and discover the essential part of the sequence space. To obtain high accuracy, initial sequences generated by MCTS are further improved by a series of local updates. Our algorithm has an ability to control the GC content precisely and can deal with pseudoknot structures. Using common benchmark datasets for evaluation, MCTS-RNA showed a lot of promise as a standard method of RNA inverse folding. MCTS-RNA is available at https://github.com/tsudalab/MCTS-RNA .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 20%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Professor 2 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 8 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 11 44%
Mathematics 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 22 February 2018.
All research outputs
#3,914,030
of 23,751,351 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,428
of 7,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,453
of 332,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#22
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,751,351 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,432 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
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 332,385 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.