Exact(2)
Base pairs were predicted for those columns in an alignment that have similar patterns of variation, more commonly called covariation.
Pseudoknotted base pairs were predicted considerably better with the constrained NAPSS-CS algorithm than with unrestrained programs (Table 5 ).
Similar(58)
In practice, if a few more base pairs are predicted or omitted, given that all the others are in the right places, the predicted structure would not be optimal, i.e. its pseudo-energy would not be minimized.
Some previously proposed base pairings are removed when both positions of a predicted base pair do not have a similar pattern of variation while new base pairs are predicted relative to the increase in the number and variation in sequences when analyzed with improved, more sensitive covariation algorithms.
Based on the coding information of Swissprot hits, the untranslated region (UTR) of each gene pair was predicted (210 pairs of 5'UTR and 337 pairs of 3'UTR) and 2,966 pairs of orthologous coding sequences (CDS) were obtained.
However, such a canonical base pair is not predicted by phylogenetic methods (Fig. 2) and is not substantiated by high-resolution data from heterologous sources, as shown in Supplementary Material, Figure S4.
Benchmark test for a set of 21 RNAs of size from 34 to 530 nt shows that 93%% on average of known base pairs can be predicted.
The total number of base pairs to be predicted in this set is 1115.
FP refers to those base pairs which are predicted but absent in the reference structure.
It comprises approximately 47,000 base pairs and is predicted to encode 38 genes.
When the strong and intermediate chemical modifications are used as constraints in RNAstructure 4.6, the MFE secondary structure still has 79.5% of known base pairs but the structure with 93.2% correctly predicted Watson−Crick base pairs is now ranked between sixth and eighth, and the most accurate structure is improved to have 95.5 or 97.7% correct Watson−Crick base pairs (Table 1).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com