Skip to main content
. 2018 May 25;4(5):eaar5316. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aar5316

Fig. 4. Blind prediction of a complex RNA tertiary fold during RNA-Puzzle 18.

Fig. 4

(A) Two-dimensional diagram of the RNA-Puzzle 18 (Zika xrRNA) modeling problem, highlighting motifs that needed to be built de novo in red (left) and SWM-predicted pairings (pastel colors; right). WC, Watson-Crick; HG, Hoogsteen. (B) Structures discovered by SWM (green) are lower in energy and ~4 Å from models from conventional fragment assembly (FARFAR; blue); note that x axis is RMSD to the lowest free energy SWM model, not the experimental structure (unavailable at the time of modeling). (C and D) Magnified view of noncanonical region built de novo for SWM model submitted for RNA-Puzzle competition (C) and the subsequently released crystal structure (D). (E) and (F) give overlays in magnified and global views, respectively (SWM, salmon; crystal, marine). (G) Fraction of noncanonical base pairs recovered and RMSD to native model obtained by Rosetta modeling (black; larger and smaller symbols are SWM and FARFAR, respectively) and other laboratories (gray) for RNA-Puzzle 18. Points recovering zero noncanonical pairs are given a small vertical perturbation to appear visually distinct.