Skip to main content
PLOS Computational Biology logoLink to PLOS Computational Biology
. 2025 Nov 20;21(11):e1013693. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013693

PseudoknotVisualizer: Visualization of pseudoknots on three-dimensional RNA structures

Takumi Otagaki 1,*, Goro Terai 1, Kiyoshi Asai 1, Junichi Iwakiri 1
Editor: Shi-Jie Chen2
PMCID: PMC12654949  PMID: 41264652

Abstract

Summary: We introduce the PseudoknotVisualizer, a specialized software designed to identify and visualize pseudoknots within RNA three-dimensional structures. Typically, RNA secondary structures containing pseudoknots can be decomposed into multiple pseudoknot-free layers. Our software colors the base pairs in each pseudoknot layer, enabling the visualization of pseudoknot distribution within three-dimensional structures. Specifically, users can utilize the PseudoknotVisualizer as a PyMOL extension, applying it directly to RNA molecules loaded in PyMOL. Additionally, a Command Line Interface (CLI) is provided, allowing users to generate coloring commands in Chimera or PyMOL formats, which can then be manually copied and pasted for visualization. By facilitating the clear depiction of pseudoknots in RNA tertiary structures, this tool addresses significant challenges in the identification and visualization of pseudoknots in RNA structural analysis, thereby enhancing research productivity and expanding potential applications in molecular biology.

Availability and implementation: PseudoknotVisualizer is freely available at https://github.com/TakumiOtagaki/PseudoknotVisualizer.

Author summary

In this study, we introduce PseudoknotVisualizer, an open-source tool for direct visualization of RNA pseudoknots within three-dimensional structures. RNA pseudoknots are critical for functions such as telomerase activity and programmed ribosomal frameshifting, yet are difficult to identify and display in 3D viewers. PseudoknotVisualizer offers two user-friendly interfaces—an extension for the world’s most widely used 3D molecular graphics viewer and a command-line interface compatible with that viewer or another leading platform. Both interfaces leverage external modules that extracts base-pairing information from tertiary coordinates of RNA structures and then iteratively decomposes these base pairs into pseudoknot-free layers via dynamic programming. Each layer is assigned a unique color, enabling rapid, intuitive recognition of pseudoknot distribution in complex RNA molecules. Applying our tool to 1,915 RNA chains from the PDB revealed that canonical base pairs predominate in the core layer (87 %), while non-canonical base pairs are enriched (30 %) in the other non-nested layers; most chains exhibit no more than three layers of pseudoknots. By clarifying pseudoknot architecture in RNA 3D structures, PseudoknotVisualizer accelerates structural analysis and supports the development of computational structure prediction methods.

1 Introduction

Pseudoknots are structural motifs formed by base pairing between two single-stranded regions separated by an intervening stem; their base pairs are non-nested interactions (they cross when drawn in two dimensions) [1,2]. In many contexts, the term “pseudoknot” is the subset of the non-nested interactions involving only canonical base pairs (Watson–Crick [3] and wobble [4]). The rest of the non-nested interactions involve non-canonical base pairs [5–7]. These non-nested interactions, including pseudoknots, are integral to various RNA tertiary formations and play biologically significant roles, such as promoting telomerase activity within the RNA component of telomerase [8,9] and serving as programmed ribosomal frameshift motifs in several RNA viruses [10–12]. Due to the labor-intensive process of determining RNA tertiary structures, the number of RNA structures recorded in databases is only about 3.80 % compared to that of proteins (https://www.rcsb.org/stats/explore/polymer_entity_type, access date: 2025/08/31). This gap underscores the need for highly accurate RNA tertiary structure prediction methods; yet, accurate prediction of pseudoknotted structures remains a considerable challenge. In the CASP15 [13] structural prediction competition, approximately 70 % of RNA targets contained pseudoknots, and high-accuracy predictions were rarely achieved, suggesting that RNA tertiary structure prediction involving pseudoknots is intrinsically challenging.

Several applications exist for analyzing pseudoknots: some can generate 2D diagrams of secondary structures with pseudoknots [14–16], while others identify pseudoknot formation based on the base-pairing information [17,18]. Among these software, RNApdbee (and its updated version RNApdbee 2.0) [15,16] gives users a choice of base-pair annotators and multiple algorithms for the pseudoknot layer decomposition and presents their calls in a common format; users can obtain dot-bracket strings including pseudoknots for downstream analysis.

Nevertheless, seamless integration of pseudoknot-aware annotation with interactive 3D visualization within a single workflow remains limited. This can hinder rapid inspection of spatial context and long-range interactions when studying pseudoknots, which is important for RNA tertiary structure analysis, including prediction.

To address this need, we developed the PseudoknotVisualizer, a tool that visualizes pseudoknots within RNA tertiary structures. This software allows users to input RNA tertiary structure data in the PDB or mmCIF format. It identifies pseudoknots (and other non-nested interactions involving non-canonical base pairs) and clarifies their spatial layouts in the widely used 3D molecular viewers, Chimera [19] and PyMOL [20]. We expect this tool to enhance researchers’ intuitive understanding of pseudoknots within RNA structures and to accelerate developments in RNA tertiary structure prediction methods by providing clear and immediate visualization. At the same time, accurate RNA secondary-structure prediction—particularly in the presence of pseudoknots—remains difficult; recent benchmark analyses across Machine Learning (ML) and non-ML methods report variable, often modest accuracy [21].

2 Design and implementation

As shown in Fig 1, PseudoknotVisualizer offers two primary interfaces: a PyMOL extension and a Command Line Interface (CLI). The PyMOL extension works within PyMOL, while the CLI supports Chimera and PyMOL.

Fig 1. Workflow of the PseudoknotVisualizer.

Fig 1

The software offers two usage options: a PyMOL extension and a Command Line Interface (CLI). The left figure illustrates the PyMOL extension, where a tertiary structure loaded into PyMOL (in this case, 5TPY) is analyzed and visualized by entering pkv 5TPY in the command line. This command applies color to the pseudoknot layers, with red indicating pseudoknot layer 1 and blue indicating layer 2, while additional layers (if present) can be visualized using other colors. Note that the entire molecule was pre-colored white to highlight the red and blue pseudoknot layers. The right figure demonstrates the CLI workflow. Like the PyMOL extension, the CLI takes a PDB or mmCIF file as input and generates a script for coloring in Chimera or PyMOL. By pasting this script into the command line of the specified viewer, users can visualize pseudoknot layers by applying colors to the structure.

Both interfaces rely on external modules; RNAView [17] and DSSR [18,22,23] to extract base-pairing information from PDB or mmCIF files. Once RNAView or DSSR is installed, users can analyze an RNA object and a specified chain in PyMOL by entering pkv RNAobject[, chainID, annotator]. Since RNAView and DSSR adopt different geometric criteria and differ in how base-pairing interactions are handled, their outputs can legitimately diverge for the same input. At the same time, multiple strategies exist for pseudoknot-layer decomposition, and different choices can lead to different decompositions (i.e., different layerings).

Each layer is colored differently to enhance visual distinction, making it easier for researchers to quickly identify and interpret the locations of pseudoknots. For large RNA molecules, where intuitively identifying pseudoknots can be particularly challenging, PseudoknotVisualizer simplifies this task by providing clear and distinct color visualization and enables immediate identification of pseudoknots, as demonstrated in Fig 2. In addition to coloring, the PyMOL extension creates separate PyMOL selections for the different layers, which enables users to interactively analyze pseudoknots.

Fig 2. Examples of the structures which have non-nested interactions involving canonical base pairs and non-canonical base pairs visualized by PseudoknotVisualizer are shown.

Fig 2

This figure illustrates examples from PDB IDs 7PTK [27] and 6T3R [28], both of which are large sequences exceeding 300 nucleotides in length, making them particularly challenging to analyze visually without computational assistance. Note that, as demonstrated in Fig 1, all structural elements were set to white prior to applying the PseudoknotVisualizer coloring operation for clarity. These visualizations were generated with annotator=RNAView and the option include_all, thereby including the non-nested interactions involving non-canonical base pairs. The color scheme is as follows: white represents unpaired bases; gray indicates paired bases including non-canonical base pairs in the core layer; red, blue, and green represent paired bases in non-nested layers 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

The CLI provides a method to use PseudoknotVisualizer without the need for a graphical user interface. By executing the following command, users can generate a coloring script for a specific chain within a PDB or mmCIF file.

python PseudoknotVisualizer/CLI_PseudoknotVisualizer.py \

-i /path/to/your_pdb.pdb \ # Supports PDB and mmCIF formats.

-o /path/to/output_script.txt \

-a RNAView \ # or DSSR (annotator)

-c chain_id \

-f pymol

The generated script can be configured for Chimera compatibility by using -f chimera option and then pasted into the PyMOL or Chimera command line to apply the coloring. For detailed usage and implementation, the source code for PseudoknotVisualizer, along with installation instructions and example datasets, is publicly available on GitHub at https://github.com/TakumiOtagaki/PseudoknotVisualizer.

A brief explanation of how PseudoknotVisualizer operates is as follows: it begins by extracting base pair information from the user-provided 3D structural data using the external module RNAView or DSSR. Based on the complete list of base pairs, it identifies sets of pseudoknot-free base pairs, which are either mutually nested or exhibit bifurcation relationships between their components. Using dynamic programming, PseudoknotVisualizer determines the subset with the maximum number of base pairs. Once this optimal set is identified, it is removed from the initial list of base pairs. This process is iteratively repeated until the original list of base pairs is empty [24]. Through this iterative approach, the algorithm systematically extracts sets of pseudoknot-free base pairs, ordering them by the number of base pairs they contain. Consequently, the distinct sets of base pairs identified in this manner are inherently related as pseudoknots. These sets are then sequentially assigned to layers, starting with layer0 (core layer) for the largest set, followed by layer1, and so on (pseudoknot layer), ensuring a clear hierarchical representation of the base pair sets. The number of these layers is called pseudoknot order [25]. Further algorithmic details are provided in S2 Text. As related work, similar layered dynamic programming strategies have been used in RNA structure prediction, notably CaCoFold, which first derives a maximally nested structure under covariation-based positive/negative constraints and then incorporates remaining (potentially non-nested) interactions in subsequent layers [26]. Our layering instead operates on base pairs annotated from 3D coordinates and optimizes the size of a non-crossing subset for visualization. We chose this greedy algorithm, which maximizes the number of base pairs at each step. In practice, this naturally maximizes the number of base pairs in the core layer, thereby minimizing those assigned to the pseudoknot layers. This, in turn, helps users to visually understand the spatial distribution of pseudoknots. In addition, the algorithm is not only intuitive but also supported by its successful application in CaCoFold [26]. While we selected this strategy for these advantages, we note that alternative algorithms could yield different results. We can also extend this algorithm to all non-nested interactions, including pseudoknots; in that case, we refer to the resulting layers as non-nested layers rather than pseudoknot layers because pseudoknot is used only for the non-nested interactions involving only canonical base pairs (see Introduction).

3 Results

Using the pseudoknot layer decomposition algorithm described in Sect 2, we decomposed 1,915 chains from RNAsolo [29] into pseudoknot-free layers (filters: repository=BGSU, redundancy=all class members, molecule=solo RNA, method=all, resolution ≤ 4.0Å; accessed 2025-07-25). RNAsolo provides pure RNA structures, deriving from Protein Data Bank. Canonical base pairs were defined as Watson–Crick pairs (A–U, G–C) and wobble pairs (G–U) [5]. While our default visualizations used canonical pairs, we also report analyses that include non-canonical pairs. Among these 1,915 chains, after excluding entries with no base pairs/layers, the analyzable set sizes were: RNAView (canonical only) 1,726 chains, of which 703 had at least one pseudoknot layer; RNAView (all pairs) 1,789 chains, of which 756 had at least one non-nested layer; DSSR (canonical only) 1,718 chains, of which 687 had at least one pseudoknot layer; DSSR (all pairs) 1,727 chains, of which 788 had at least one non-nested layer. Using DSSR, we obtained 44,698 canonical and 8,331 non-canonical base pairs; using RNAView, 48,306 canonical and 6,509 non-canonical pairs. These differences reflect distinct geometric criteria and treatment of nucleotide interactions; however, the key trends reported below were consistent across both annotators.

Fig 3a shows the distribution of the number of non-nested layers (when considering only canonical base pairs, this corresponds to the pseudoknot order), annotating with DSSR. With canonical pairs only, most chains have ≤ 3 layers; including non-canonical pairs slightly shifts the tail, but orders >4 remain rare. The observed distribution of pseudoknot orders is consistent with findings from previous studies [15], and RNAView results show the same overall trend despite some differences (Supplementary S1 Fig).

Fig 3. (a) Both graphs represent the frequency of the number of layers in RNA chains from PDB entries on the condition that these entries contain at least one base pair.

Fig 3

The top graph considers only canonical base pairs, showing that over 80 % of chains have at most 2 layers. The bottom graph includes all base pairs, including non-canonical ones, demonstrating a larger number of layers compared to the top graph. Nevertheless, over 80 % of chains still have at most 3 layers. (b) Distribution of canonical and non-canonical base pairs across different decomposed layers in RNA molecules that contain at least one pseudoknot or other non-nested interactions, as determined by the PseudoknotVisualizer. Results shown were obtained using DSSR as the base-pair annotator.

We then extracted chains which have at least one non-nested layer. Fig 3b summarizes, for each layer, the per-chain fraction of non-canonical versus canonical pairs. The layer0 (core layer) is dominated by canonical pairs, whereas non-nested layers tend to show a higher fraction of non-canonical pairs. RNAView analysis again yields a broadly similar pattern, with some deviations from the DSSR results (Supplementary S1 Fig). While these results are robust across the two annotation tools, it should be noted that adopting a different decomposition algorithm could potentially lead to variations in the observed distributions.

4 Availability and future directions

Our present work provides an overview of base pairs which form the non-nested interactions, including pseudoknots. Our next step is to conduct a comprehensive statistical analysis of these interactions to better understand RNA structure. Specifically, we will quantify the distribution of the types of base-pairs which form the non-nested interactions and structural contexts and assess their contributions to 3D structure folding. Insights from these analyses will guide updates to PseudoknotVisualizer, which is expected to support structural prediction and analysis.

As shown in the Results section, the different combination of base-pair annotators and pseudoknot decomposition algorithms might lead to different results. In order to give various options to users, we are planning to add the following options and update; (i) Base-pair annotators. We plan to support other annotators (e.g., MC-Annotate, FR3D, ClaRNA [7,30,31]), as user-selectable back ends. This will make base-pair calls more comprehensive and allow side-by-side comparisons across annotators. (ii) pseudoknot decomposition algorithms. In addition to the current maximum-cardinality non-crossing subset, we will provide alternative algorithm proposed by [24], so that users can select the criterion that best matches their analysis.

Availability: PseudoknotVisualizer is freely available at https://github.com/TakumiOtagaki/PseudoknotVisualizer.

Installation instructions and usage examples are provided.

5 Conclusion

The PseudoknotVisualizer software facilitates the visualization and observation of pseudoknots in the tertiary structures of RNA. This advancement is expected to address challenges related to the prediction of pseudoknotted structures. Accurate prediction and visualization of pseudoknots are essential for effective analysis. Qualitative comparisons of predicted structures, which are also important for accurate prediction, are difficult to perform automatically, often requiring manual inspection of structural features. In such cases, visualizing the pseudoknots in a 3D viewer becomes especially important for interpreting RNA structural features accurately. Furthermore, this tool accelerates efficiency for researchers in conducting detailed RNA 3D structure analyses, enabling faster interpretation of data and discovery of structural insights.

Supporting information

S1 Text. Base-pair detection methods (base-pair annotators).

DSSR v1.9.10-2020apr23; RNAView v2.0.0 (Jan 2024).

(PDF)

pcbi.1013693.s001.pdf (36.6KB, pdf)
S2 Text. Details of pseudoknot layer decomposition algorithm.

We render the drawing in layers. Given the allowed base pairs E, we perform greedy layering by a Nussinov-style dynamic programming pass that extracts a maximum-cardinality non-crossing subset at each layer. Each DP pass runs in O(n3) time and O(n2) space. This strategy is effective for visualization but does not guarantee the minimum number of layers.

(PDF)

pcbi.1013693.s002.pdf (177.2KB, pdf)
S3 Text. Data and code availability.

Code: https://github.com/TakumiOtagaki/PseudoknotVisualizer (license MIT). The scripts to recreate the graphs are provided. The full chain list (PDB ID + chain) is available at analysis/dataset/ pdbid_chains.txt in the repository.

(PDF)

pcbi.1013693.s003.pdf (42.1KB, pdf)
S1 Fig. Supplementary analyses.

(a) Distribution of the number of layers when using RNAView as the base-pair annotator. The trend is consistent with the DSSR-based results; including non-canonical base pairs increases the number of layers compared with using canonical pairs only. (b) Distribution of canonical and non-canonical base pairs across layers. Non-nested layers have a higher fraction of non-canonical base pairs than the core layer.

(PDF)

pcbi.1013693.s004.pdf (593.5KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

We thank the attendees of the RNA Informatics Dojo 2024 in Hokkaido, Japan for valuable discussions.

Data Availability

Source codes and manuals have been deposited at the GitHub repository: https://github.com/TakumiOtagaki/PseudoknotVisualizer.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP24H00737, JP22H04925(PAGS) to K.A., and JP23K28183, JP25H01166 to J.I.; and Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) CREST Grant Number JPMJCR23N1 to K.A.. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Staple DW, Butcher SE. Pseudoknots: RNA structures with diverse functions. PLoS Biol. 2005;3(6):e213. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030213 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Batey R, Rambo R, Doudna J. Tertiary Motifs in RNA Structure and Folding. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 1999;38(16):2326–43. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1521-3773(19990816)38:16<2326::aid-anie2326>3.0.co;2-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.WATSON JD, CRICK FH. Molecular structure of nucleic acids; a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature. 1953;171(4356):737–8. doi: 10.1038/171737a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Crick FH. Codon–anticodon pairing: the wobble hypothesis. J Mol Biol. 1966;19(2):548–55. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2836(66)80022-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Leontis NB, Westhof E. Geometric nomenclature and classification of RNA base pairs. RNA. 2001;7(4):499–512. doi: 10.1017/s1355838201002515 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nagaswamy U, Voss N, Zhang Z, Fox GE. Database of non-canonical base pairs found in known RNA structures. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28(1):375–6. doi: 10.1093/nar/28.1.375 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lemieux S, Major F. RNA canonical and non-canonical base pairing types: a recognition method and complete repertoire. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002;30(19):4250–63. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkf540 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gilley D, Blackburn EH. The telomerase RNA pseudoknot is critical for the stable assembly of a catalytically active ribonucleoprotein. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96(12):6621–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.12.6621 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chen JL, Blasco MA, Greider CW. Secondary structure of vertebrate telomerase RNA. Cell. 2000;100(5):503–14. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)80687-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ritchie DB, Foster DAN, Woodside MT. Programmed -1 frameshifting efficiency correlates with RNA pseudoknot conformational plasticity, not resistance to mechanical unfolding. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(40):16167–72. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1204114109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Giedroc DP, Cornish PV. Frameshifting RNA pseudoknots: structure and mechanism. Virus Res. 2009;139(2):193–208. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2008.06.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hill CH, Brierley I. Structural and functional insights into viral programmed ribosomal frameshifting. Annu Rev Virol. 2023;10(1):217–42. doi: 10.1146/annurev-virology-111821-120646 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Elofsson A. Progress at protein structure prediction, as seen in CASP15. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2023;80:102594. doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2023.102594 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Byun Y, Han K. PseudoViewer: web application and web service for visualizing RNA pseudoknots and secondary structures. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34(Web Server issue):W416-22. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkl210 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Antczak M, Zok T, Popenda M, Lukasiak P, Adamiak RW, Blazewicz J, et al. RNApdbee–a webserver to derive secondary structures from pdb files of knotted and unknotted RNAs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42(Web Server issue):W368-72. doi: 10.1093/nar/gku330 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Antczak M, Popenda M, Zok T, Zurkowski M, Adamiak RW, Szachniuk M. New algorithms to represent complex pseudoknotted RNA structures in dot-bracket notation. Bioinformatics. 2018;34(8):1304–12. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx783 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Yang H, Jossinet F, Leontis N, Chen L, Westbrook J, Berman H, et al. Tools for the automatic identification and classification of RNA base pairs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003;31(13):3450–60. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkg529 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lu X-J, Bussemaker HJ, Olson WK. DSSR: an integrated software tool for dissecting the spatial structure of RNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(21):e142. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv716 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pettersen EF, Goddard TD, Huang CC, Couch GS, Greenblatt DM, Meng EC, et al. UCSF Chimera–a visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. J Comput Chem. 2004;25(13):1605–12. doi: 10.1002/jcc.20084 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Schrödinger LLC. The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, Version 1.8. 2015.
  • 21.Justyna M, Antczak M, Szachniuk M. Machine learning for RNA 2D structure prediction benchmarked on experimental data. Brief Bioinform. 2023;24(3):bbad153. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbad153 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hanson RM, Lu X-J. DSSR-enhanced visualization of nucleic acid structures in Jmol. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45(W1):W528–33. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkx365 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lu X-J. DSSR-enabled innovative schematics of 3D nucleic acid structures with PyMOL. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020;48(13):e74. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa426 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Smit S, Rother K, Heringa J, Knight R. From knotted to nested RNA structures: a variety of computational methods for pseudoknot removal. RNA. 2008;14(3):410–6. doi: 10.1261/rna.881308 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Zok T, Badura J, Swat S, Figurski K, Popenda M, Antczak M. New models and algorithms for RNA pseudoknot order assignment. Int J Appl Math Comput Sci. 2020;30(2):315–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Rivas E. RNA structure prediction using positive and negative evolutionary information. PLoS Comput Biol. 2020;16(10):e1008387. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008387 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.McRae EKS, Rasmussen HØ, Liu J, Bøggild A, Nguyen MTA, Sampedro Vallina N, et al. Structure, folding and flexibility of co-transcriptional RNA origami. Nat Nanotechnol. 2023;18(7):808–17. doi: 10.1038/s41565-023-01321-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Manigrasso J, Chillón I, Genna V, Vidossich P, Somarowthu S, Pyle AM, et al. Visualizing group II intron dynamics between the first and second steps of splicing. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):2837. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-16741-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Adamczyk B, Antczak M, Szachniuk M. RNAsolo: a repository of cleaned PDB-derived RNA 3D structures. Bioinformatics. 2022;38(14):3668–70. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac386 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sarver M, Zirbel CL, Stombaugh J, Mokdad A, Leontis NB. FR3D: finding local and composite recurrent structural motifs in RNA 3D structures. J Math Biol. 2008;56(1–2):215–52. doi: 10.1007/s00285-007-0110-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Waleń T, Chojnowski G, Gierski P, Bujnicki JM. ClaRNA: a classifier of contacts in RNA 3D structures based on a comparative analysis of various classification schemes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42(19):e151. doi: 10.1093/nar/gku765 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Comput Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013693.r001

Decision Letter 0

Shi-Jie Chen, Arne Elofsson

7 Jul 2025

PCOMPBIOL-D-25-01111

PseudoknotVisualizer: Enabling Direct Visualization of Pseudoknots on Three-Dimensional RNA Structures

PLOS Computational Biology

Dear Dr. Otagaki,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Computational Biology. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Computational Biology's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

​Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days Sep 06 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at ploscompbiol@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pcompbiol/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Shi-Jie Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Arne Elofsson

Section Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Journal Requirements:

1) We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex. If you are providing a .tex file, please upload it under the item type u2018LaTeX Source Fileu2019 and leave your .pdf version as the item type u2018Manuscriptu2019.

2) Your manuscript is missing the following sections: Design and Implementation, Results, and Availability and Future Directions. Please ensure that your article adheres to the standard Software article layout and order of Abstract, Introduction, Design and Implementation, Results, and Availability and Future Directions. For details on what each section should contain, see our Software article guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/s/submission-guidelines#loc-software-submissions

3) Please upload all main figures as separate Figure files in .tif or .eps format. For more information about how to convert and format your figure files please see our guidelines: 

https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/s/figures

4) Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOSu2019s copyright policy, authors who use figures or other material (e.g., graphics, clipart, maps) from another author or copyright holder must demonstrate or obtain permission to publish this material under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License used by PLOS journals. Please closely review the details of PLOSu2019s copyright requirements here: PLOS Licenses and Copyright. If you need to request permissions from a copyright holder, you may use PLOS's Copyright Content Permission form.

Please respond directly to this email and provide any known details concerning your material's license terms and permissions required for reuse, even if you have not yet obtained copyright permissions or are unsure of your material's copyright compatibility. Once you have responded and addressed all other outstanding technical requirements, you may resubmit your manuscript within Editorial Manager. 

Potential Copyright Issues:

i) Figure 1. Please confirm whether you drew the images / clip-art within the figure panels by hand. If you did not draw the images, please provide (a) a link to the source of the images or icons and their license / terms of use; or (b) written permission from the copyright holder to publish the images or icons under our CC BY 4.0 license. Alternatively, you may replace the images with open source alternatives. See these open source resources you may use to replace images / clip-art:

- https://commons.wikimedia.org

- https://openclipart.org/.

5) Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

1) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

2) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders..

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note that one of the reviews is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: The paper by Otagaki et al. presents PseudoknotVisualizer, a visualization plugin designed for PyMOL and Chimera that highlights pseudoknot-forming base pairs in RNA 3D structures using distinct colors. The tool integrates existing third-party algorithms to detect base pairs and identify pseudoknots of various orders, and then applies color coding to these elements within a rendered 3D model. While the plugin is of some practical use for visualizing RNA pseudoknots, the work appears to be primarily an engineering-level implementation effort, suitable for an undergraduate-level project. The core computational tasks - base pair annotation and pseudoknot classification - are delegated entirely to external tools, with the authors contributing the integration of these tools and visualization layer. Scientifically, the novel aspect of the paper lies in the descriptive statistics of canonical and noncanonical base pairs across different structural layers and pseudoknot orders. Notably, the plugin does not support the currently recommended mmCIF input format or new-style PDB identifiers, which significantly limits its applicability to the newest and large RNA structures. These are my main concerns regarding the manuscript. Additional comments are outlined below.

(1) The Introduction opens with the sentence: "Pseudoknot structures are complex RNA formations where two or more groups of base pairs form between distinct loop regions of the other base pairing groups." First, the phrase "regions of the other base pairing groups" is unclear and should be rephrased for precision. More importantly, this definition of pseudoknots appears to be overly narrow. Pseudoknots form when base-pairing interactions occur between two single-stranded regions separated by a stem, and these single-stranded regions do not necessarily have to be loops - they can include other unpaired segments such as extended single-stranded tails. If the authors define pseudoknots strictly as interactions between loops, does this imply that their software cannot handle cases where pseudoknots involve a loop and a non-loop single-stranded region? Clarification is needed both in the definition and in the scope of the tool's capabilities.

(2) In the second paragraph of the Introduction, the authors state: "However, there are no useful tools that can efficiently identify and clarify pseudoknots in 3D RNA structure data." This statement is inaccurate and somewhat surprising, especially considering that the authors themselves cite RNApdbee, a well-established tool that directly addresses this task. RNApdbee analyzes RNA 3D structures (!), annotates base pairs including pseudoknots, and generates 2D structural visualizations in which pseudoknots of different orders are highlighted with distinct colors and symbols in an extended dot-bracket notation. The tool allows users to choose among multiple algorithms (four for base-pair annotation and five for topological classification of pseudoknots) and supports modern data formats, including mmCIF. Although RNApdbee does not provide 3D visualization like PseudoknotVisualizer, it offers significantly broader functionality for the analysis, annotation, and topological decomposition of pseudoknots in RNA 3D structures. I recommend that the authors revise this claim to reflect the actual state of available tools and clarify how their approach complements or differs from existing solutions.

(3) The authors have arbitrarily selected specific tools for base-pair annotation (Yang et al., 2003) and pseudoknot topology decomposition (Smit et al., 2008), but they do not justify why these particular methods were chosen. Are the authors aware that multiple algorithms exist for both base-pair detection and pseudoknot classification, and that these tools can yield substantially different results? In fact, the same 3D RNA structure can be interpreted as having very different maximum pseudoknot orders depending on the methods used. For example, in the case of PDB entry 3J7Q, the identified pseudoknot order may vary between 4, 5, 6, or even 7 when analyzed with different algorithms available in RNApdbee.

The current implementation of PseudoknotVisualizer relies on a fixed pipeline, using tools preselected by the authors, without informing the user that these choices affect the outcome or that alternative tools might lead to different interpretations. This lack of transparency is problematic, as it may mislead users into assuming that the presented results are deterministic and definitive. I strongly recommend that the authors either provide a rationale for their choices or, preferably, implement options for algorithm selection or include a warning regarding result variability.

(4) At the end of the Introduction, the authors write that their script might enhance researchers’ intuitive understanding of pseudoknots within RNA structures and to accelerate developments in RNA tertiary structure prediction methods by providing clear and immediate visualization. The authors may also consider acknowledging the current limitations in RNA secondary structure prediction when pseudoknots are involved. While several algorithms exist that attempt to predict secondary structures including pseudoknots, the accuracy of such predictions remains low. This limitation is well illustrated in recent analyses, such as the study by Justyna et al. (2023), which highlights the challenges associated with reliable prediction of RNA secondary structures with and without pseudoknots.

(5) "Consequently, the distinct sets of base pairs identified in this manner are inherently related as pseudoknots. These sets are then sequentially assigned to layers, starting with layer0 for the largest …" - regarding this fragment, it would be helpful to clarify explicitly that layer0 refers to the core structure, i.e., the base-pairing layer that does not contain any pseudoknots. While this may be implied, stating it directly would improve clarity for readers who are less familiar with pseudoknot decomposition convention used in this work.

(6) The sentence "Using the pseudoknot layer decomposition algorithm described in Section 2" appears to refer to a description of the algorithm that is actually presented in the unnumbered section titled Main Features, which either functions as part of the Introduction or was unintentionally left without a section number. In the current structure of the manuscript, Section 2 contains statistical analyses rather than a description of the decomposition algorithm. I recommend correcting this reference to avoid confusion and to ensure accurate navigation for the reader.

(7) "After excluding complexes with proteins or other molecules for simplicity and selecting only structures composed solely of RNA, we obtained a dataset of 1,788 RNA chains" - Since the content of the PDB is constantly updated, I recommend that the authors specify the exact date of data retrieval to ensure reproducibility. As an alternative source for curated RNA-only 3D structures, the authors may also consider referring to the RNAsolo database (https://rnasolo.cs.put.poznan.pl/), which facilitates the extraction of RNA chains not involved in complexes with proteins or ligands.

(8) In the sentence "These 1,355 chains contained a total of 24,047 canonical base pairs and 7,198 non-canonical base pairs" it is unclear whether these statistics refer to the entire structures or only to the regions involved in pseudoknot formation. I recommend that the authors clarify this point in the manuscript.

(9) In the caption of Figure 3, the phrase "number of layer" should be corrected to "number of layers".

(10) In Figure 3(b), the two adjacent plots use different vertical axis scales: the left plot ranges from 0 to 0.5, while the right plot ranges from 0 to 0.35. Using inconsistent y-axis scales in side-by-side plots is a classic form of statistical misrepresentation and makes it difficult to accurately compare the data between the two charts. I strongly recommend adjusting the figure so that both plots use the same y-axis scale to enable proper visual comparison.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript introduces a visualization tool to directly identify non-nested RNA base pairs within 3D structural renderings of all atoms of an RNA structure, such as PyMOL.

My main point about this manuscript is about the use of the word pseudoknot. I believe, they should be called non-nested interactions. Pseudoknots are a particular subset of non-tested interactions that involve Watson-Crick base pairing only. The rest of the non-nested interactions involve non-WC base pairing.

The distintion is important, because pseudoknots consist of nested WC base pairs the stack forming helices are subject to the same evolutionary presures than the nested WC helix and also display covariation when homologous pseudoknots are aligned. The same is mostly not true for the rest of non-nested non-WC base pair interactions, which do not form helices.

-- For instance this definition in the paper

"Pseudoknot structures are complex RNA formations where two or more groups of base pairs form between distinct loop regions of the other base pairing groups."

should be replaced byt "two or more groups of WC base pairs". And overal the non-nested interactions includes pseudoknots and all other non-WC base pairs.

-- Also the abstract statement

"canonical base pairs predominate in the main layer (78.6 %), while pseudoknot layers are enriched in non-canonical pairs (50.4 %);"

should be re-written as "non nested layers include about ~50% pseudoknots versus other non-canonical pairs".

it would be interesting to see what kind of nested base pair they are seeing in the main layer that are not WC that constitute more than 20% of them.

--- The title should also be re-written.

-- Also, the dp algorithm to select layers is not described. Also notice that using a layered DP to select maximal subsets of nested interactions has been used extensively before (example, CaCoFold).

Reviewer #3: See attached PLOS-PseudoknotVisualizer.pdf

**********

Have the authors made all data and (if applicable) computational code underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data and code underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data and code should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data or code —e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Xiang-Jun Lu

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

Figure resubmission:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. If there are other versions of figure files still present in your submission file inventory at resubmission, please replace them with the PACE-processed versions.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS-PseudoknotVisualizer.pdf

pcbi.1013693.s005.pdf (158KB, pdf)
PLoS Comput Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013693.r003

Decision Letter 1

Shi-Jie Chen, Arne Elofsson

5 Oct 2025

PCOMPBIOL-D-25-01111R1

PseudoknotVisualizer: Visualization of Pseudoknots on Three-Dimensional RNA Structures

PLOS Computational Biology

Dear Dr. Otagaki,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Computational Biology. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Computational Biology's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 30 days Dec 05 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at ploscompbiol@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pcompbiol/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Arne Elofsson

Section Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Arne Elofsson

Section Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: I appreciate that the authors positively responded to all my comments. I am aware theat it required quite a lot of effort but the text is much more clear now. I do not have any other questions/comments.

Reviewer #2: This new version has made some clarifications, but they still insist on a redefinition of the term pseudoknot that is absolutely unnecessary and conflicts with the actual definition of pseudoknot (the arrangement of two helices of WC base pairs where one of the helices involves residues in the loop of the other helix, [Batey, Rmabo, Doubna, 1999]), and ignores all the literature on other RNA 3D architectures in the RNA loops involving nonWC base pairs (Westhof, Leontis).

Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed my comments and concerns.

**********

Have the authors made all data and (if applicable) computational code underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data and code underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data and code should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data or code —e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

Figure resubmission:

While revising your submission, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.

After uploading your figures to PLOS’s NAAS tool - https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis, NAAS will process the files provided and display the results in the "Uploaded Files" section of the page as the processing is complete. If the uploaded figures meet our requirements (or NAAS is able to fix the files to meet our requirements), the figure will be marked as "fixed" above. If NAAS is unable to fix the files, a red "failed" label will appear above. When NAAS has confirmed that the figure files meet our requirements, please download the file via the download option, and include these NAAS processed figure files when submitting your revised manuscript.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

PLoS Comput Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013693.r005

Decision Letter 2

Shi-Jie Chen, Arne Elofsson

2 Nov 2025

Dear Mr. Otagaki,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'PseudoknotVisualizer: Visualization of Pseudoknots on Three-Dimensional RNA Structures' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Computational Biology.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Computational Biology. 

Best regards,

Shi-Jie Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

Arne Elofsson

Section Editor

PLOS Computational Biology

***********************************************************

PLoS Comput Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013693.r006

Acceptance letter

Shi-Jie Chen, Arne Elofsson

PCOMPBIOL-D-25-01111R2

PseudoknotVisualizer: Visualization of Pseudoknots on Three-Dimensional RNA Structures

Dear Dr Otagaki,

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Computational Biology. Your manuscript is now with our production department and you will be notified of the publication date in due course.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, unless you have opted out, the early version of your manuscript will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

For Research, Software, and Methods articles, you will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

Thank you again for supporting PLOS Computational Biology and open-access publishing. We are looking forward to publishing your work!

With kind regards,

Anita Estes

PLOS Computational Biology | Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge CB4 3DN | United Kingdom ploscompbiol@plos.org | Phone +44 (0) 1223-442824 | ploscompbiol.org | @PLOSCompBiol

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Text. Base-pair detection methods (base-pair annotators).

    DSSR v1.9.10-2020apr23; RNAView v2.0.0 (Jan 2024).

    (PDF)

    pcbi.1013693.s001.pdf (36.6KB, pdf)
    S2 Text. Details of pseudoknot layer decomposition algorithm.

    We render the drawing in layers. Given the allowed base pairs E, we perform greedy layering by a Nussinov-style dynamic programming pass that extracts a maximum-cardinality non-crossing subset at each layer. Each DP pass runs in O(n3) time and O(n2) space. This strategy is effective for visualization but does not guarantee the minimum number of layers.

    (PDF)

    pcbi.1013693.s002.pdf (177.2KB, pdf)
    S3 Text. Data and code availability.

    Code: https://github.com/TakumiOtagaki/PseudoknotVisualizer (license MIT). The scripts to recreate the graphs are provided. The full chain list (PDB ID + chain) is available at analysis/dataset/ pdbid_chains.txt in the repository.

    (PDF)

    pcbi.1013693.s003.pdf (42.1KB, pdf)
    S1 Fig. Supplementary analyses.

    (a) Distribution of the number of layers when using RNAView as the base-pair annotator. The trend is consistent with the DSSR-based results; including non-canonical base pairs increases the number of layers compared with using canonical pairs only. (b) Distribution of canonical and non-canonical base pairs across layers. Non-nested layers have a higher fraction of non-canonical base pairs than the core layer.

    (PDF)

    pcbi.1013693.s004.pdf (593.5KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS-PseudoknotVisualizer.pdf

    pcbi.1013693.s005.pdf (158KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

    pcbi.1013693.s006.pdf (5.7MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.pdf

    pcbi.1013693.s007.pdf (1,003.4KB, pdf)

    Data Availability Statement

    Source codes and manuals have been deposited at the GitHub repository: https://github.com/TakumiOtagaki/PseudoknotVisualizer.


    Articles from PLOS Computational Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES