Ribonucleic acid (RNA) functions through conformational changes that are not fully captured by static structures. However, large-scale standardized RNA dynamics data remain limited, and existing approaches typically treat trajectory generation and dynamics understanding as separate objectives. Here, we introduce RNADynBench, a standardized RNA molecular dynamics (MD) benchmark with 2585 quality-controlled 100-ns all-atom trajectories and leakage-controlled splits. Building on RNADynBench, we develop RNADynNet, a unified model for RNA dynamics learning that uses a shared backbone for both trajectory generation and dynamics fingerprint extraction from a single conformer. It combines coordinate denoising, single-frame-to-trajectory alignment, and physical grounding to connect all-atom trajectory generation with dynamics representation learning. Physical grounding improves both generated dynamics and the physical information recoverable from these fingerprints. Across both test sets, including the high-flexibility challenge set, the generated trajectories achieve RMSF correlations of 0.875 and 0.766, while single-conformer predictions show comparable agreement with MD-derived dynamics. RNADynBench and RNADynNet together establish a benchmark and unified modeling framework for generating and understanding RNA dynamics.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: RNADynBench visualized. a , Mean Rg versus RNA residue count. Points show individual RNAs, lines connect length-binned medians, and the inset shows counts; ρ is Spearman correlation between RNA length and mean Rg . b , Median phosphate–water radial distribution functions (RDFs); shading shows the interquartile range, and vertical lines mark the first peak and minima. c , Weighted median lag-RMSD for size-matched RNA–protein comparisons; shading shows the weighted interquartile range (IQR). d , e , Weighted distributions of mean local RMSF ( d ) and median pairwise RMSD ( e ). Split violins show protein left and matched RNA right, with median, IQR, and 5th–95th percentiles. RNA uses C4 ′ atoms and protein uses C α atoms.
Resource
Scale
Simulation time
Task
BIGNASim (2016) \citep BIGNASim-NAR2016
14 traj
15.6 μ s total
Database and analysis
CASP15 MD \citep CASP15MD-CSBJ2025
9 RNAs / 61 traj
300 ns each (18.3 μ s total)
Structure refinement
DeepRMSF \citep DeepRMSF-BIB2026
371 RNAs
200 ns each (74.2 μ s total)
RMSF prediction
RNADynBench
1,469 RNAs / 2,585 traj
100 ns each ( 258.5 μ s total)
MD generation / prediction
Table 1: Comparison of RNA MD resources.
Figure 2: Overview of RNADynNet. RNADynNet jointly learns trajectory generation and single-conformer dynamics representations from MD trajectories. During training, the trajectory view (blue) provides temporal context for denoising and alignment, while the single-conformer view (pink) learns a dynamics representation from one conformer. Physical grounding supervises both views with MD-derived dynamical statistics. At inference, a single conformer supports two modes: the denoising path generates a trajectory, whereas the encoder readout directly yields a dynamics fingerprint. ST denotes spatiotemporal.
Method
test_struct
test_flex
Bond MAE ↓
O3P max ↓
Chiral flip ↓
Clash /1k ↓
RMSF r↑
PCA W2↓
GPU time
Bond MAE ↓
O3P max ↓
Chiral flip ↓
Clash /1k ↓
RMSF r↑
PCA W2↓
GPU time
Reference
0.03308
0.1938
0
0
0.9819
0.7295
8.1h
0.03307
0.1966
0
0
0.9633
3.1137
13.9h
ConfRover
0.19315
120.4747
0.03103
581.4520
0.0666
9.3105
340.4s
0.16506
133.0420
0
419.7848
0.2288
11.1922
501.5s
MDGen
0.08024
15.1488
0.03103
95.9398
0.3737
2.4200
7.2s
0.10786
18.9945
<10−5
88.9058
0.2994
8.9282
11.0s
BioKinema
0.02612
4.4682
0.03836
2.0746
0.8770
1.9276
40.2s
0.02950
8.3586
0.02012
5.8241
0.7536
5.9406
47.8s
w/o PG
0.02418
2.4455
0.03097
1.1884
0.8594
1.9085
/
0.02555
9.1171
0.00160
2.8416
0.7440
6.1744
/
Table 2: Trajectory generation on RNADynBench. Bold marks the best.
Figure 3: Dynamics inference from single conformers. Predicted per-nucleotide RMSF and pairwise nucleotide motion couplings from RNADynNet are compared with MD references for two RNAs. Motion-coupling matrices show RNADynNet below the diagonal and MD above; structures are colored by RMSF.
test_struct
test_flex
RMSF
Covariance
NMC
RMSF
Covariance
NMC
Method
r↑
MAE ↓
RMWD ↓
Sym. KL ↓
IoU ↑
r↑
MAE ↓
r↑
MAE ↓
RMWD ↓
Sym. KL ↓
IoU ↑
r↑
MAE ↓
MD reference
0.8755
0.3770
0.7960
0.5525
0.5497
0.8532
0.1462
0.7584
1.6415
3.5505
1.3471
0.4185
0.7520
0.2145
RNA-FM †
0.2939
1.6188
2.1173
4.9868
0.1731
0.3690
0.2644
0.2085
3.8148
5.0390
4.2367
0.2318
0.3635
0.2952
Geometry-GNN
0.2801
1.1241
1.5796
2.8662
0.2561
0.4821
0.2591
0.3385
3.4276
4.6870
3.1959
0.3054
0.4442
0.2910
RNA-FM+2D GCN
0.1257
2.0117
2.6303
8.5914
0.1831
0.4797
0.2569
0.1536
3.5511
4.8377
4.9398
0.2625
0.5333
0.2609
Table 3: Single-conformer prediction of MD-derived RNA dynamics. The MD reference compares two non-overlapping 50-ns MD blocks; model predictions are evaluated against full 100-ns MD statistics. † denotes probes on frozen representations. Bold denotes the best result.
Figure 4: Predictive data scaling on test_struct . NMC MAE ( a ) and covariance-ellipsoid IoU ( b ) across 10–100% of the training data and 1k–6k training steps.
AUROC-Biosensor
AUROC-Robin
Method
Random
RNA homology
Ligand fingerprint
Homol. & fingerpr.
Random
RNA homology
Ligand fingerprint
Homol. & fingerpr.
RSAPred \citep RSAPred-BIB2024
0.8764
0.7550
0.6707
0.6019
0.6327
0.5392
0.6320
0.4938
DeepDTIs \citep DeepDTIs-JPR2017
0.9300
0.8399
0.6813
0.6118
0.6302
0.5503
0.6290
0.4987
DeepConv-DTI \citep DeepConvDTI-PLoSCB2019
0.9249
0.8427
0.6894
0.6213
0.6301
0.5625
0.6390
0.5104
GraphDTA \citep GraphDTA-Bioinformatics2021
0.8992
0.8284
0.7014
0.6370
0.6590
0.5528
0.6481
0.5510
GerNA-Bind \citep GerNABind-NMI2025
0.9755
0.9014
0.7723
0.7279
0.7094
0.6188
0.6814
0.6176
Table 4: RNA–ligand binding AUROC ( best , second best ).
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Setting
Value
Simulation engine
GROMACS \citep gromacs-2015
RNA force field
Amber RNA OL3 \citep AmberRNAOL3-2011
Solvent and ions
OPC water \citep OPCwater-2014; Li–Merz 12-6 OPC Na + /Cl - parameters \citep Sengupta-2021; neutralizing ions plus 150 mM NaCl
Periodic box
Rhombic dodecahedron; 12 Å default padding, increased to 18 or 24 Å for periodic-image contacts
Electrostatics
Particle-mesh Ewald \citep PME-1993
Integration
4 fs time step with hydrogen mass repartitioning \citep Feenstra-1999
Appendix
Table 5: RNADynBench molecular dynamics protocol.
Partition
Trajectories
Primary role
Training
2,248
Model optimization and downstream probe training
Validation
102
Checkpoint and hyperparameter selection
test_struct
117
Structural and molecular generalization
test_flex
100
High-flexibility generalization
Homology guard
18
Excluded homology/cluster guards
Total
2,585
Appendix
Table 6: RNADynBench dataset splits.
Figure 5: Size-stratified RNA–protein dynamics. Distributions of ( a ) mean marker-atom RMSF, ( b ) mean RMSD to the first sampled frame, and ( c ) heavy-atom Rg coefficient of variation across five size bins. RNA uses C4 ′ markers and protein uses C α ; vertical axes are logarithmic. Split violins show proteins on the left and matched RNAs on the right; bars indicate the median, interquartile range, and 5th–95th percentiles.
Symbol
Meaning
L,A,N,d
Numbers of frames, atoms, residues, and feature dimensions.
X,xf
All-atom trajectory window and its frame- f conformer.
θ,θˉ
Online parameters and their EMA; fingerprints use the latter.
Dθ,Eθ,Eθˉ,ℓfp
Trajectory denoiser, online single-conformer encoder, EMA fingerprint encoder, and readout block.
X,σ,ϵ
Noised trajectory, coordinate-noise scale tensor, and Gaussian perturbation.
Rtraj,Rsf
Independent global rotations of the trajectory and single-frame views.
Appendix
Table 7: Notation used throughout our manuscript.
Model
test_struct
test_flex
Bond MAE ↓
O3P max ↓
Chiral flip ↓
Clash /1k ↓
RMSF r↑
PCA W2↓
Bond MAE ↓
O3P max ↓
Chiral flip ↓
Clash /1k ↓
RMSF r↑
PCA W2↓
Cov-only
0.02423
1.7091
0.03092
0.9583
0.8712
1.8699
0.02561
3.8573
0.00126
3.2085
0.7609
5.8609
Coupling-only
0.02414
1.0845
0.03088
0.9891
0.8631
1.8983
0.02537
5.4953
0.00093
2.8008
0.7623
5.8490
Full model (Block 24)
0.02430
1.2558
0.03091
0.9256
0.8720
1.8896
0.02586
6.2126
0.00043
3.1947
0.7592
5.8033
Full model (Block 17)
0.02424
1.8858
0.03085
0.8225
0.8746
1.8739
0.02567
4.2400
0.00093
3.0404
0.7658
5.9169
Appendix
Table 8: Trajectory-generation ablations. RNA-group macro means; distances are in Å and chiral flips in percent.
test_struct
test_flex
RMSF
Covariance
NMC
RMSF
Covariance
NMC
Method
r↑
MAE ↓
RMWD ↓
Sym. KL ↓
IoU ↑
r↑
MAE ↓
r↑
MAE ↓
RMWD ↓
Sym. KL ↓
IoU ↑
r↑
MAE ↓
Cov-only
0.8540
0.4307
0.8856
0.6007
0.5309
0.7936
0.1722
0.7711
1.7128
3.3259
0.8238
0.4547
0.7537
0.2090
Coupling-only
0.8448
0.4535
0.9297
0.6690
0.4806
0.8160
0.1626
0.7468
1.7138
3.3845
0.9596
0.4322
0.7646
0.2012
Full model (Block 24)
0.8622
0.4124
0.8716
0.5892
0.5276
0.8016
0.1659
0.7696
1.5995
3.2786
0.8498
0.4476
0.7592
0.2023
Full model (Block 17)
0.8626
0.4076
0.8741
0.5823
0.5276
0.7958
0.1694
0.7782
1.7560
3.3359
0.8775
0.4522
0.7577
0.2035
Appendix
Table 9: Single-conformer dynamics ablations using independent probes on frozen EMA backbones. RNA-group macro means; RMWD and RMSF MAE are in Å.
Figure 6: Predictive data scaling. Orange curves darken from 1k to 6k training updates across 10–100% of the training data. Shading shows pointwise 95% source-RNA-group bootstrap intervals for 6k only. Each checkpoint uses its EMA backbone and EMA descriptor heads.
Figure 7: Stepwise denoising of the low-motion held-out RNA 3IVN_A. Columns show 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100 ns. Step rows are diagnostic x^0 estimates at the labeled noise scales; the final two rows show the generated trajectory and reference MD. Ribbon gaps mark O3 ′ –P distances of at least 2.6 Å.
Figure 8: Stepwise denoising of the median-motion held-out RNA 3SKR_A. Columns show 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100 ns. Step rows are diagnostic x^0 estimates at the labeled noise scales; the final two rows show the generated trajectory and reference MD. Ribbon gaps mark O3 ′ –P distances of at least 2.6 Å.
Figure 9: Stepwise denoising of the high-motion held-out RNA 6AZ4_A. Columns show 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100 ns. Step rows are diagnostic x^0 estimates at the labeled noise scales; the final two rows show the generated trajectory and reference MD. Ribbon gaps mark O3 ′ –P distances of at least 2.6 Å.
Learning molecular models of RNA requires simulation data that capture conformational variability and provide consistent physical training signals. Here, we introduce mdRNAcat, a curated dataset of all-atom molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of 48 RNA systems selected to promote sequence diversity. Each system is simulated using replica-exchange with solute scaling (REST2), with 32 Hamiltonian states and production lengths of 200-300 ns per state. The dataset provides atomic coordinates, instantaneous forces, and forces reevaluated under the unscaled reference Hamiltonian, together with structural annotations and replica-exchange metadata. Coordinates and forces are available at 1 ps intervals for the reference state and 100 ps intervals across all states in a standardized HDF5 format. We characterize conformational sampling, exchange behavior, base pairing, and sugar-pucker distributions to document the properties of the simulated ensembles. mdRNAcat provides a reusable resource for developing and evaluating data-driven RNA models, including coarse-grained force fields.
Anton E. Dorn, Emile de Bruyn, Fabrice von der Lehr +3
Jülich Supercomputing Centre, Forschungszentrum Jülich (FZJ) · Faculty of Physics, Georg August University of Göttingen · Institute of Software Technology, Germany Aerospace Center (DLR) +2
Accurate RNA structure modeling remains difficult because RNA backbones are highly flexible, non-canonical interactions are prevalent, and experimentally determined 3D structures are comparatively scarce. We introduce RiboSphere, a framework that learns discrete geometric representations of RNA by combining vector quantization with flow matching. Our design is motivated by the modular organization of RNA architecture: complex folds are composed from recurring structural motifs. RiboSphere uses a geometric transformer encoder trained using mean-centered coordinates and random rotation augmentation to produce geometry-aware features, which are discretized with finite scalar quantization (FSQ) into a finite vocabulary of latent codes. Conditioned on these discrete codes, a flow-matching decoder reconstructs atomic coordinates, enabling high-fidelity structure generation. We find that the learned code indices are enriched for specific RNA motifs, suggesting that the model captures motif-level compositional structure rather than acting as a purely compressive bottleneck. Across benchmarks, RiboSphere achieves strong performance in structure reconstruction (RMSD 1.25,Å, TM-score 0.84), and its pretrained discrete representations transfer effectively to inverse folding and RNA--ligand binding prediction, with robust generalization in data-scarce regimes. Code is available at https://github.com/Zhangz312/RiboSphere.
Zhou Zhang, Hanqun Cao, Cheng Tan +3
State Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology at Nanjing University, School of Computer Science, Nanjing University · The Chinese University of Hong Kong · Stanford University
RNA molecules often function through multiple experimentally observed conformational states. A central challenge is to capture ensemble diversity without sacrificing structural fidelity: samples may collapse toward averaged representative structures or drift into unsupported conformational regions. We introduce REFLEX (RNA Ensemble generation calibrated by FLEXibility), a sequence-conditioned generator for RNA backbone-frame ensembles based on a heteroscedastic stochastic bridge on SE(3). During training, experimental B-factors calibrate residue-wise bridge widths, exposing each observed conformer through local perturbation neighborhoods with residue-specific scales while keeping constrained regions sharper. A learned flexibility condition guides the bridge-field network to recover target conformer-specific frames from these calibrated noisy states. At inference, REFLEX uses only the input sequence, requiring no MSA-subsampling heuristics. On a multi-conformer RNA benchmark, REFLEX achieves the best precision-recall trade-off for ensemble coverage across evaluation thresholds, while recovery-stress ablations indicate gains in target-frame recovery under stronger perturbations.