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 CentroidFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Murlet(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric CentroidFold Murlet(20)
MCC 0.708 > 0.698
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.721 ± 0.101 > 0.701 ± 0.077
Sensitivity 0.697 > 0.591
Positive Predictive Value 0.724 < 0.831
Total TP 486 > 412
Total TN 74558 < 74733
Total FP 278 > 150
Total FP CONTRA 66 > 21
Total FP INCONS 119 > 63
Total FP COMP 93 > 66
Total FN 211 < 285
P-value 0.000493106477465

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidFold and Murlet(20). 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 CentroidFold and Murlet(20)).

  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 CentroidFold and Murlet(20)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidFold and Murlet(20). 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 CentroidFold and Murlet(20)).

^top





Performance of CentroidFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 486
Total TN 74558
Total FP 278
Total FP CONTRA 66
Total FP INCONS 119
Total FP COMP 93
Total FN 211
Total Scores
MCC 0.708
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.721 ± 0.101
Sensitivity 0.697
Positive Predictive Value 0.724
Nr of predictions 26

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
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 13 0 0 13 0
2XKV_B 0.64 0.73 0.57 8 1821 27 0 6 21 3
2XQD_Y 0.83 0.81 0.85 17 1109 4 0 3 1 4
2XXA_G 0.13 0.11 0.17 4 2021 21 2 18 1 31
3A2K_C 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1082 14 3 11 0 10
3AMU_B 0.81 0.79 0.83 15 1139 6 0 3 3 4
3GX2_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 25 1424 1 0 0 1 3
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.60 0.57 0.64 54 25451 38 16 15 7 41
3IZF_C 0.89 0.91 0.86 32 2603 11 0 5 6 3
3JYV_7 0.92 0.85 1.00 17 1094 2 0 0 2 3
3JYX_3 0.35 0.47 0.27 7 2352 21 14 5 2 8
3JYX_4 0.41 0.58 0.29 7 4732 25 11 6 8 5
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.87 0.84 0.91 31 2244 8 1 2 5 6
3O58_2 0.95 0.94 0.97 29 2724 7 0 1 6 2
3O58_3 0.44 0.41 0.47 9 4745 11 1 9 1 13
3PDR_A 0.88 0.86 0.90 43 4792 7 2 3 2 7
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.70 0.69 0.71 20 1505 8 4 4 0 9
4A1C_2 0.22 0.25 0.19 5 4490 29 9 12 8 15
4A1C_3 0.80 0.78 0.83 29 2728 8 0 6 2 8
4AOB_A 0.50 0.48 0.54 14 1411 13 3 9 1 15
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



Performance of Murlet(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 412
Total TN 74733
Total FP 150
Total FP CONTRA 21
Total FP INCONS 63
Total FP COMP 66
Total FN 285
Total Scores
MCC 0.698
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.701 ± 0.077
Sensitivity 0.591
Positive Predictive Value 0.831
Nr of predictions 26

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2L94_A 0.51 0.50 0.56 9 341 8 0 7 1 9
2WRQ_Y 0.63 0.67 0.60 6 1142 13 1 3 9 3
2XKV_B 0.60 0.36 1.00 4 1831 3 0 0 3 7
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.86 0.90 18 1109 3 0 2 1 3
2XXA_G 0.44 0.20 1.00 7 2038 0 0 0 0 28
3A2K_C 0.88 0.86 0.90 19 1087 2 0 2 0 3
3AMU_B 0.89 0.89 0.89 17 1138 4 0 2 2 2
3GX2_A 0.73 0.54 1.00 15 1434 1 0 0 1 13
3IVN_B 0.80 0.65 1.00 15 888 0 0 0 0 8
3IZ4_A 0.46 0.33 0.66 31 25489 22 3 13 6 64
3IZF_C 0.88 0.83 0.94 29 2609 5 0 2 3 6
3JYV_7 0.84 0.80 0.89 16 1093 4 0 2 2 4
3JYX_3 0.76 0.73 0.79 11 2364 14 0 3 11 4
3JYX_4 0.72 0.75 0.69 9 4743 15 3 1 11 3
3LA5_A 0.80 0.64 1.00 16 938 0 0 0 0 9
3NPB_A 0.65 0.43 1.00 16 2262 2 0 0 2 21
3O58_2 1.00 1.00 1.00 31 2723 2 0 0 2 0
3O58_3 0.37 0.32 0.44 7 4748 13 4 5 4 15
3PDR_A 0.84 0.76 0.93 38 4799 3 1 2 0 12
3RKF_A 0.81 0.67 1.00 16 850 0 0 0 0 8
3SD1_A 0.82 0.83 0.83 24 1504 5 4 1 0 5
4A1C_2 0.22 0.25 0.20 5 4491 24 5 15 4 15
4A1C_3 0.72 0.59 0.88 22 2738 4 0 3 1 15
4AOB_A 0.87 0.76 1.00 22 1415 3 0 0 3 7
4ENB_A 0.51 0.27 1.00 4 468 0 0 0 0 11
4ENC_A 0.57 0.33 1.00 5 491 0 0 0 0 10

^top


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