↓ Skip to main content

Efficient pairwise RNA structure prediction using probabilistic alignment constraints in Dynalign

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, April 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
connotea
2 Connotea
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
Efficient pairwise RNA structure prediction using probabilistic alignment constraints in Dynalign
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, April 2007
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-8-130
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arif Ozgun Harmanci, Gaurav Sharma, David H Mathews

Abstract

Joint alignment and secondary structure prediction of two RNA sequences can significantly improve the accuracy of the structural predictions. Methods addressing this problem, however, are forced to employ constraints that reduce computation by restricting the alignments and/or structures (i.e. folds) that are permissible. In this paper, a new methodology is presented for the purpose of establishing alignment constraints based on nucleotide alignment and insertion posterior probabilities. Using a hidden Markov model, posterior probabilities of alignment and insertion are computed for all possible pairings of nucleotide positions from the two sequences. These alignment and insertion posterior probabilities are additively combined to obtain probabilities of co-incidence for nucleotide position pairs. A suitable alignment constraint is obtained by thresholding the co-incidence probabilities. The constraint is integrated with Dynalign, a free energy minimization algorithm for joint alignment and secondary structure prediction. The resulting method is benchmarked against the previous version of Dynalign and against other programs for pairwise RNA structure prediction.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
France 1 2%
Unknown 51 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 39%
Researcher 13 24%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 2 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 22%
Computer Science 10 19%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 6%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 3 6%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 May 2016.
All research outputs
#7,454,298
of 22,789,076 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#3,023
of 7,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,173
of 74,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#20
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,076 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,279 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 74,204 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.