CompaRNA - on-line benchmarks of RNA structure prediction methods
Home

Methods
Datasets
Rankings
RNA 2D Atlas

Help
FAQ

Contact us
RSS feeds
Twitter

Table of contents:

  1. Overview

  2. Performance Plots

  3. Performance of Carnac(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Contrafold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for Carnac(20) & Contrafold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric Carnac(20) Contrafold
MCC 0.696 > 0.656
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.652 ± 0.113 < 0.674 ± 0.112
Sensitivity 0.518 < 0.675
Positive Predictive Value 0.941 > 0.643
Total TP 380 < 495
Total TN 77735 > 77369
Total FP 75 < 387
Total FP CONTRA 6 < 95
Total FP INCONS 18 < 180
Total FP COMP 51 < 112
Total FN 353 > 238
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Carnac(20) and Contrafold. Positive Predictive Value (PPV) is plotted against sensitivity. Each dot represents a single test of each method. See tables below for raw data (individual counts for Carnac(20) and Contrafold).

  2. Average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were plotted for different RNA families, for which at least 3 members were present in the benchmarking dataset. 'n' denotes the number of MCCs used to calculate the average and CI. See tables below for raw data (individual counts for Carnac(20) and Contrafold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Carnac(20) and Contrafold. The whiskers correspond to 95% confidence intervals (CIs). 'n' denotes the number of MCCs used to calculate average MCCs and CIs. See tables below for raw data (individual counts for Carnac(20) and Contrafold).

^top





Performance of Carnac(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Carnac(20)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 380
Total TN 77735
Total FP 75
Total FP CONTRA 6
Total FP INCONS 18
Total FP COMP 51
Total FN 353
Total Scores
MCC 0.696
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.652 ± 0.113
Sensitivity 0.518
Positive Predictive Value 0.941
Nr of predictions 28

^top



2. Individual counts for Carnac(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 0.77 0.60 1.00 6 168 0 0 0 0 4
2L94_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 357 0 0 0 0 18
2WRQ_Y 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 1143 14 0 0 14 0
2XKV_B 0.43 0.18 1.00 2 1833 1 0 0 1 9
2XQD_Y 0.87 0.76 1.00 16 1113 1 0 0 1 5
2XXA_G 0.29 0.09 1.00 3 2042 0 0 0 0 32
3A2K_C 0.88 0.77 1.00 17 1091 0 0 0 0 5
3AMU_B 0.79 0.79 0.79 15 1138 7 0 4 3 4
3G4S_9 0.73 0.54 1.00 14 2722 4 0 0 4 12
3GX2_A 0.68 0.46 1.00 13 1436 0 0 0 0 15
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.31 0.88 29 25503 4 3 1 0 66
3IZF_C 0.91 0.83 1.00 29 2611 2 0 0 2 6
3JYV_7 0.81 0.70 0.93 14 1096 3 0 1 2 6
3JYX_3 0.83 0.80 0.86 12 2364 13 0 2 11 3
3JYX_4 0.76 0.58 1.00 7 4749 2 0 0 2 5
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.46 0.22 1.00 8 2270 3 0 0 3 29
3O58_2 0.93 0.87 1.00 27 2727 2 0 0 2 4
3O58_3 0.60 0.36 1.00 8 4756 1 0 0 1 14
3PDR_A 0.75 0.58 0.97 29 4810 3 1 0 2 21
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.72 0.55 0.94 16 1516 1 0 1 0 13
4A1C_3 0.79 0.73 0.87 27 2732 5 0 4 1 10
4A1C_2 0.42 0.25 0.71 5 4509 3 0 2 1 15
4AOB_A 0.59 0.48 0.74 14 1418 6 2 3 1 15
4ENB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 472 0 0 0 0 15
4ENC_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 496 0 0 0 0 15

^top



Performance of Contrafold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 495
Total TN 77369
Total FP 387
Total FP CONTRA 95
Total FP INCONS 180
Total FP COMP 112
Total FN 238
Total Scores
MCC 0.656
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.674 ± 0.112
Sensitivity 0.675
Positive Predictive Value 0.643
Nr of predictions 28

^top



2. Individual counts for Contrafold [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 164 0 0 0 0 0
2L94_A 0.94 0.94 0.94 17 339 2 0 1 1 1
2WRQ_Y 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 1143 14 0 0 14 0
2XKV_B 0.64 0.73 0.57 8 1821 27 0 6 21 3
2XQD_Y 0.85 0.86 0.86 18 1108 4 0 3 1 3
2XXA_G 0.10 0.11 0.12 4 2012 30 2 27 1 31
3A2K_C 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1082 14 3 11 0 10
3AMU_B 0.75 0.79 0.71 15 1136 9 0 6 3 4
3G4S_9 0.45 0.50 0.42 13 2705 24 6 12 6 13
3GX2_A 0.93 0.89 0.96 25 1423 2 1 0 1 3
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.57 0.58 0.57 55 25440 49 18 23 8 40
3IZF_C 0.89 0.91 0.86 32 2603 11 0 5 6 3
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1091 20 4 16 0 20
3JYX_3 0.33 0.47 0.24 7 2349 24 16 6 2 8
3JYX_4 0.39 0.58 0.27 7 4730 35 13 6 16 5
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.86 0.84 0.89 31 2243 9 1 3 5 6
3O58_2 0.92 0.94 0.91 29 2722 10 0 3 7 2
3O58_3 0.32 0.36 0.29 8 4736 21 7 13 1 14
3PDR_A 0.83 0.86 0.80 43 4786 13 5 6 2 7
3RKF_A 0.87 0.83 0.91 20 844 2 2 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.68 0.69 0.69 20 1504 9 5 4 0 9
4A1C_3 0.81 0.81 0.81 30 2726 10 0 7 3 7
4A1C_2 0.21 0.25 0.19 5 4489 33 9 13 11 15
4AOB_A 0.53 0.52 0.56 15 1410 13 3 9 1 14
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 1 0 0 1 4
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 1 0 0 1 4

^top


Matthews Correlation Coeffient, Sensitivity and Positive Predictive Value have been calculated based on the paper by Gardener & Giegerich, 2004.