ArticleCommunications biology2026
What does it take to learn the rules of RNA base pairing? A lot less than you may think.
Article in Communications biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deep Learning for RNA Secondary Structure Determination: Gauging Generalizability and Broadening the Scope of Traditional Methods.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Amidst the fast-developing trend of RNA large language models with millions of parameters, we asked what would be minimally required to rediscover the rules of RNA canonical base pairing that define secondary structure, namely the Watson-Crick-Franklin A:U, G:C and the wobble G:U base pairs. Here, we conclude that it does not require much at all. It does not require knowing secondary structures, it does not require aligning the sequences, and it does not require many parameters. We selected a probabilistic model (a stochastic context-free grammar or SCFG) with a total of just 21 parameters, that can describe arbitrary pairwise interactions including but not restricted to those of RNA base pairing. Using standard deep learning techniques, we estimate its parameters by implementing the generative process in an automatic differentiation (autodiff) framework and applying stochastic gradient descent (SGD). We define and minimize a loss function that does not use any structural or alignment information. Trained on as few as fifty RNA sequences, the specific rules of RNA base pairing emerge after only a few iterations of SGD. Crucially, the sole inputs are RNA sequences. When optimizing for sequences corresponding to structured RNAs, SGD also yields the rules of RNA base-pair aggregation into helices. In sharp contrast, when trained on shuffled sequences, the system optimizes by avoiding base pairing altogether. Trained on messenger RNAs, it reveals interactions that are different from those of structural RNAs, and specific to each mRNA. We demonstrate that our approach generalizes across diverse RNA families by testing on 1094 sequences from 22 structurally distinct RNA families. Our results show that the emergence of canonical RNA base-pairing can be attributed to sequence-level signals that are robust and detectable even without labeled structures or alignments, and with very few parameters. Autodiff algorithms for probabilistic models, such as, but not restricted to SCFGs, have significant potential as they allow these models to be incorporated into end-to-end RNA deep learning methods for discerning transcripts of different functionalities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.