RNA-Puzzles is a collective experiment in blind 3D RNA structure prediction. We report here a third round of RNA-Puzzles. Five puzzles, 4, 8, 12, 13, 14, all structures of riboswitch aptamers and puzzle 7, a ribozyme structure, are included in this round of the experiment. The riboswitch structures include biological binding sites for small molecules (S-adenosyl methionine, cyclic diadenosine monophosphate, 5-amino 4-imidazole carboxamide riboside 5 ′ -triphosphate, glutamine) and proteins (YbxF), and one set describes large conformational changes between ligand-free and ligand-bound states. The Varkud satellite ribozyme is the most recently solved structure of a known large ribozyme. All puzzles have established biological functions and require structural understanding to appreciate their molecular mechanisms. Through the use of fast-track experimental data, including multidimensional chemical mapping, and accurate prediction of RNA secondary structure, a large portion of the contacts in 3D have been predicted correctly leading to similar topologies for the top ranking predictions. Template-based and homologyderived predictions could predict structures to particularly high accuracies. However, achieving biological insights from de novo prediction of RNA 3D structures still depends on the size and complexity of the RNA. Blind computational predictions of RNA structures already appear to provide useful structural information in many cases. Similar to the previous RNA-Puzzles Round II experiment, the prediction of non-Watson-Crick interactions and the observed high atomic clash scores reveal a notable need for an algorithm of improvement. All prediction models and assessment results are available at http://ahsoka.ustrasbg.fr/rnapuzzles/.

This paper is a report of a second round of RNA-Puzzles, a collective and blind experiment in three-dimensional (3D) RNA structure prediction. Three puzzles, Puzzles 5, 6, and 10, represented sequences of three large RNA structures with limited or no homology with previously solved RNA molecules. A lariat-capping ribozyme, as well as riboswitches complexed to adenosylcobalamin and tRNA, were predicted by seven groups using RNAComposer, ModeRNA/SimRNA, Vfold, Rosetta, DMD, MC-Fold, 3dRNA, and AMBER refinement. Some groups derived models using data from state-of-the-art chemicalmapping methods (SHAPE, DMS, CMCT, and mutate-and-map). The comparisons between the predictions and the three subsequently released crystallographic structures, solved at diffraction resolutions of 2.5-3.2 Å, were carried out automatically using various sets of quality indicators. The comparisons clearly demonstrate the state of present-day de novo prediction abilities as well as the limitations of these state-of-the-art methods. All of the best prediction models have similar topologies to the native structures, which suggests that computational methods for RNA structure prediction can already provide useful structural information for biological problems. However, the prediction accuracy for non-Watson-Crick interactions, key to proper folding of RNAs, is low and some predicted models had high Clash Scores. These two difficulties point to some of the continuing bottlenecks in RNA structure prediction. All submitted models are available for download at http://ahsoka.u-strasbg .fr/rnapuzzles/.

BackgroundThere is growing interest in using machine learning approaches to priority rank studies and reduce human burden in screening literature when conducting systematic reviews. In addition, identifying addressable questions during the problem formulation phase of systematic review can be challenging, especially for topics having a large literature base. Here, we assess the performance of the SWIFT-Review priority ranking algorithm for identifying studies relevant to a given research question. We also explore the use of SWIFT-Review during problem formulation to identify, categorize, and visualize research areas that are data rich/data poor within a large literature corpus.MethodsTwenty case studies, including 15 public data sets, representing a range of complexity and size, were used to assess the priority ranking performance of SWIFT-Review. For each study, seed sets of manually annotated included and excluded titles and abstracts were used for machine training. The remaining references were then ranked for relevance using an algorithm that considers term frequency and latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) topic modeling. This ranking was evaluated with respect to (1) the number of studies screened in order to identify 95 % of known relevant studies and (2) the “Work Saved over Sampling” (WSS) performance metric. To assess SWIFT-Review for use in problem formulation, PubMed literature search results for 171 chemicals implicated as EDCs were uploaded into SWIFT-Review (264,588 studies) and categorized based on evidence stream and health outcome. Patterns of search results were surveyed and visualized using a variety of interactive graphics.ResultsCompared with the reported performance of other tools using the same datasets, the SWIFT-Review ranking procedure obtained the highest scores on 11 out of 15 of the public datasets. Overall, these results suggest that using machine learning to triage documents for screening has the potential to save, on average, more than 50 % of the screening effort ordinarily required when using un-ordered document lists. In addition, the tagging and annotation capabilities of SWIFT-Review can be useful during the activities of scoping and problem formulation.ConclusionsText-mining and machine learning software such as SWIFT-Review can be valuable tools to reduce the human screening burden and assist in problem formulation.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0263-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A new version (version 2) of the genomic dose-response analysis software, BMDExpress, has been created. The software addresses the increasing use of transcriptomic dose-response data in toxicology, drug design, risk assessment and translational research. In this new version, we have implemented additional statistical filtering options (e.g. Williams' trend test), curve fitting models, Linux and Macintosh compatibility and support for additional transcriptomic platforms with up-to-date gene annotations. Furthermore, we have implemented extensive data visualizations, onthe-fly data filtering, and a batch-wise analysis workflow. We have also significantly re-engineered the code base to reflect contemporary software engineering practices and streamline future development. The first version of BMDExpress was developed in 2007 to meet an unmet demand for easy-touse transcriptomic dose-response analysis software. Since its original release, however, transcriptomic platforms, technologies, pathway annotations and quantitative methods for data analysis have undergone a large change necessitating a significant redevelopment of BMDExpress. To that end, as of 2016, the National Toxicology Program assumed stewardship of BMDExpress. The result is a modernized and updated BMDExpress 2 that addresses the needs of the growing toxicogenomics user community.

Background: In the screening phase of systematic review, researchers use detailed inclusion/exclusion criteria to decide whether each article in a set of candidate articles is relevant to the research question under consideration. A typical review may require screening thousands or tens of thousands of articles in and can utilize hundreds of person-hours of labor. Methods: Here we introduce SWIFT-Active Screener, a web-based, collaborative systematic review software application, designed to reduce the overall screening burden required during this resource-intensive phase of the review process. To prioritize articles for review, SWIFT-Active Screener uses active learning, a type of machine learning that incorporates user feedback during screening. Meanwhile, a negative binomial model is employed to estimate the number of relevant articles remaining in the unscreened document list. Using a simulation involving 26 diverse systematic review datasets that were previously screened by reviewers, we evaluated both the document prioritization and recall estimation methods. Results: On average, 95% of the relevant articles were identified after screening only 40% of the total reference list. In the 5 document sets with 5,000 or more references, 95% recall was achieved after screening only 34% of the available references, on average. Furthermore, the recall estimator we have proposed provides a useful, conservative estimate of the percentage of relevant documents identified during the screening process. Conclusion: SWIFT-Active Screener can result in significant time savings compared to traditional screening and the savings are increased for larger project sizes. Moreover, the integration of explicit recall estimation during screening solves an important challenge faced by all machine learning systems for document screening: when to stop screening a prioritized reference list. The software is currently available in the form of a multi-user, collaborative, online web application.