Constraint Maximal Inter-molecular Helix Lengths within RNA-RNA Interaction Prediction Improves Bacterial sRNA Target Prediction

Efficient computational tools for the identification of putative target RNAs regulated by prokaryotic sRNAs rely on thermodynamic models of RNA secondary structures. While they typically predict RNA–RNA interaction complexes accurately, they yield many highly-ranked false positives in target screens. One obvious source of this low specificity appears to be the disability of current secondary-structure-based models to reflect steric constraints, which nevertheless govern the kinetic formation of RNA–RNA interactions. For example, often—even thermodynamically favorable—extensions of short initial kissing hairpin interactions are kinetically prohibited, since this would require unwinding of intra-molecular helices as well as sterically impossible bending of the interaction helix. In consequence, the efficient prediction methods, which do not consider such effects, predict over-long helices. To increase the prediction accuracy, we devise a dynamic programming algorithm that length-restricts the runs of consecutive inter-molecular base pairs (perfect canonical stackings), which we hypothesize to implicitely model the steric and kinetic effects. The novel method is implemented by extending the state-of-the-art tool INTARNA. Our comprehensive bacterial sRNA target prediction benchmark demonstrates significant improvements of the prediction accuracy and enables 3-4 times faster computations. These results indicate—supporting our hypothesis—that length-limitations on inter-molecular subhelices increase the accuracy of interaction prediction models compared to the current state-of-the-art approach.

[1]  G. Storz,et al.  Target prediction for small, noncoding RNAs in bacteria , 2006, Nucleic acids research.

[2]  Rolf Backofen,et al.  IntaRNA: efficient prediction of bacterial sRNA targets incorporating target site accessibility and seed regions , 2008, Bioinform..

[3]  Fei Deng,et al.  Comparative and integrative analysis of RNA structural profiling data: current practices and emerging questions , 2017, Quantitative Biology.

[4]  Andreas S. Richter,et al.  Bioinformatics of prokaryotic RNAs , 2014, RNA biology.

[5]  Rolf Backofen,et al.  Integration of accessibility data from structure probing into RNA–RNA interaction prediction , 2019, Bioinform..

[6]  G. Storz,et al.  Regulation by small RNAs in bacteria: expanding frontiers. , 2011, Molecular cell.

[7]  D. Crothers,et al.  Improved estimation of secondary structure in ribonucleic acids. , 1973, Nature: New biology.

[8]  Peter F. Stadler,et al.  Thermodynamics of RNA-RNA Binding , 2006, German Conference on Bioinformatics.

[9]  Paul P. Gardner,et al.  A comprehensive benchmark of RNA–RNA interaction prediction tools for all domains of life , 2016, Bioinform..

[10]  David H. Mathews,et al.  NNDB: the nearest neighbor parameter database for predicting stability of nucleic acid secondary structure , 2009, Nucleic Acids Res..

[11]  Rolf Backofen,et al.  Interactive implementations of thermodynamics-based RNA structure and RNA–RNA interaction prediction approaches for example-driven teaching , 2018, PLoS computational biology.

[12]  Hanah Margalit,et al.  Integration of Bacterial Small RNAs in Regulatory Networks. , 2017, Annual review of biophysics.

[13]  É. Massé,et al.  Regulatory RNAs and target mRNA decay in prokaryotes. , 2013, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[14]  David L. Wheeler,et al.  GenBank , 2015, Nucleic Acids Res..

[15]  J. Vogel,et al.  Small RNA binding to 5' mRNA coding region inhibits translational initiation. , 2008, Molecular cell.

[16]  Peter F. Stadler,et al.  RIsearch2: suffix array-based large-scale prediction of RNA–RNA interactions and siRNA off-targets , 2017, Nucleic acids research.

[17]  Rolf Backofen,et al.  IntaRNA 2.0: enhanced and customizable prediction of RNA–RNA interactions , 2017, Nucleic Acids Res..

[18]  Rolf Backofen,et al.  CopraRNA and IntaRNA: predicting small RNA targets, networks and interaction domains , 2014, Nucleic Acids Res..

[19]  T. Tang,et al.  Bacterial sRNAs: regulation in stress. , 2013, International journal of medical microbiology : IJMM.

[20]  Rolf Backofen,et al.  GLASSgo – Automated and Reliable Detection of sRNA Homologs From a Single Input Sequence , 2018, Front. Genet..

[21]  Peter F. Stadler,et al.  RNApredator: fast accessibility-based prediction of sRNA targets , 2011, Nucleic Acids Res..

[22]  Peter F. Stadler,et al.  ViennaRNA Package 2.0 , 2011, Algorithms for Molecular Biology.

[23]  Tsukasa Fukunaga,et al.  RIblast: an ultrafast RNA–RNA interaction prediction system based on a seed-and-extension approach , 2016, bioRxiv.

[24]  Rolf Backofen,et al.  Structure and Interaction Prediction in Prokaryotic RNA Biology. , 2018, Microbiology spectrum.

[25]  Rolf Backofen,et al.  RNA-bioinformatics: Tools, services and databases for the analysis of RNA-based regulation. , 2017, Journal of biotechnology.

[26]  Stephan H. Bernhart,et al.  RNA Accessibility in cubic time , 2011, Algorithms for Molecular Biology.

[27]  Stan J. J. Brouns,et al.  Planting the seed: target recognition of short guide RNAs. , 2014, Trends in microbiology.

[28]  Andreas S. Richter,et al.  Comparative genomics boosts target prediction for bacterial small RNAs , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[29]  Wuju Li,et al.  Predicting sRNAs and Their Targets in Bacteria , 2012, Genom. Proteom. Bioinform..

[30]  C. Ehresmann,et al.  RNA loop-loop interactions as dynamic functional motifs. , 2002, Biochimie.

[31]  E. Westhof,et al.  An unusual structure formed by antisense-target RNA binding involves an extended kissing complex with a four-way junction and a side-by-side helical alignment. , 2000, RNA.