Understanding the errors of SHAPE-directed RNA structure modeling

Single-nucleotide-resolution chemical mapping for structured RNA is being rapidly advanced by new chemistries, faster readouts, and coupling to computational algorithms. Recent tests have shown that selective 2'-hydroxyl acylation by primer extension (SHAPE) can give near-zero error rates (0-2%) in modeling the helices of RNA secondary structure. Here, we benchmark the method using six molecules for which crystallographic data are available: tRNA(phe) and 5S rRNA from Escherichia coli, the P4-P6 domain of the Tetrahymena group I ribozyme, and ligand-bound domains from riboswitches for adenine, cyclic di-GMP, and glycine. SHAPE-directed modeling of these highly structured RNAs gave an overall false negative rate (FNR) of 17% and a false discovery rate (FDR) of 21%, with at least one helix prediction error in five of the six cases. Extensive variations of data processing, normalization, and modeling parameters did not significantly mitigate modeling errors. Only one varation, filtering out data collected with deoxyinosine triphosphate during primer extension, gave a modest improvement (FNR = 12%, and FDR = 14%). The residual structure modeling errors are explained by the insufficient information content of these RNAs' SHAPE data, as evaluated by a nonparametric bootstrapping analysis. Beyond these benchmark cases, bootstrapping suggests a low level of confidence (<50%) in the majority of helices in a previously proposed SHAPE-directed model for the HIV-1 RNA genome. Thus, SHAPE-directed RNA modeling is not always unambiguous, and helix-by-helix confidence estimates, as described herein, may be critical for interpreting results from this powerful methodology.Comment: Biochemistry, Article ASAP (Aug. 15, 2011

Understanding the Errors of SHAPE-Directed RNA Structure Modeling

Single-nucleotide-resolution chemical mapping for structured RNA is being rapidly advanced by new chemistries, faster readouts, and coupling to computational algorithms. Recent tests have shown that selective 2′-hydroxyl acylation by primer extension (SHAPE) can give near-zero error rates (0–2%) in modeling the helices of RNA secondary structure. Here, we benchmark the method using six molecules for which crystallographic data are available: tRNA­(phe) and 5S rRNA from Escherichia coli, the P4–P6 domain of the Tetrahymena group I ribozyme, and ligand-bound domains from riboswitches for adenine, cyclic di-GMP, and glycine. SHAPE-directed modeling of these highly structured RNAs gave an overall false negative rate (FNR) of 17% and a false discovery rate (FDR) of 21%, with at least one helix prediction error in five of the six cases. Extensive variations of data processing, normalization, and modeling parameters did not significantly mitigate modeling errors. Only one varation, filtering out data collected with deoxyinosine triphosphate during primer extension, gave a modest improvement (FNR = 12%, and FDR = 14%). The residual structure modeling errors are explained by the insufficient information content of these RNAs’ SHAPE data, as evaluated by a nonparametric bootstrapping analysis. Beyond these benchmark cases, bootstrapping suggests a low level of confidence (<50%) in the majority of helices in a previously proposed SHAPE-directed model for the HIV-1 RNA genome. Thus, SHAPE-directed RNA modeling is not always unambiguous, and helix-by-helix confidence estimates, as described herein, may be critical for interpreting results from this powerful methodology

Quantitative Dimethyl Sulfate Mapping for Automated RNA Secondary Structure Inference

For decades, dimethyl sulfate (DMS) mapping has informed manual modeling of RNA structure in vitro and in vivo. Here, we incorporate DMS data into automated secondary structure inference using an energy minimization framework developed for 2′-OH acylation (SHAPE) mapping. On six noncoding RNAs with crystallographic models, DMS-guided modeling achieves overall false negative and false discovery rates of 9.5% and 11.6%, respectively, comparable to or better than those of SHAPE-guided modeling, and bootstrapping provides straightforward confidence estimates. Integrating DMS–SHAPE data and including 1-cyclohexyl­(2-morpholinoethyl) carbodiimide metho-<i>p</i>-toluene sulfonate (CMCT) reactivities provide small additional improvements. These results establish DMS mapping, an already routine technique, as a quantitative tool for unbiased RNA secondary structure modeling