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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for CentroidHomfold‑LAST & RNASLOpt [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric CentroidHomfold‑LAST RNASLOpt
MCC 0.752 > 0.668
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.760 ± 0.134 > 0.714 ± 0.120
Sensitivity 0.664 > 0.638
Positive Predictive Value 0.861 > 0.711
Total TP 286 > 275
Total TN 23902 > 23847
Total FP 83 < 154
Total FP CONTRA 9 < 28
Total FP INCONS 37 < 84
Total FP COMP 37 < 42
Total FN 145 < 156
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidHomfold-LAST and RNASLOpt. 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and RNASLOpt).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidHomfold-LAST and RNASLOpt. 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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and RNASLOpt).

^top





Performance of CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidHomfold‑LAST

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 286
Total TN 23902
Total FP 83
Total FP CONTRA 9
Total FP INCONS 37
Total FP COMP 37
Total FN 145
Total Scores
MCC 0.752
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.760 ± 0.134
Sensitivity 0.664
Positive Predictive Value 0.861
Nr of predictions 29

^top



2. Individual counts for CentroidHomfold‑LAST [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 517 11 0 11 0 18
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LHP_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 246 0 0 0 0 0
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 123 3 0 0 3 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2436 4 0 4 0 29
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 2 0 0 2 0
2LWK_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 197 1 0 0 1 1
3J0L_2 - 0.55 0.31 1.00 8 2242 0 0 0 0 18
3J0L_8 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 69 0 0 0 0 0
3J0L_h - 0.88 0.84 0.93 27 2111 4 0 2 2 5
3J0L_7 - 0.83 0.70 1.00 7 512 1 0 0 1 3
3J0L_g - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 176 0 0 0 0 2
3J0L_a - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 408 3 1 2 0 11
3J0L_1 - 0.73 0.62 0.89 8 475 3 0 1 2 5
3J16_L 0.90 0.81 1.00 17 1142 0 0 0 0 4
3SN2_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 10 144 0 0 0 0 2
3TRZ_Z - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 87 1 0 0 1 0
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 112 1 0 0 1 0
3TS2_V - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 103 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.78 0.73 0.84 16 1257 4 0 3 1 6
3UZL_B 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 1279 7 0 0 7 2
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
4A1C_3 0.80 0.78 0.83 29 2728 7 0 6 1 8
4A1C_2 0.24 0.25 0.24 5 4495 29 8 8 13 15
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.85 0.72 1.00 21 1416 1 0 0 1 8
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 0 0 0 0 4

^top



Performance of RNASLOpt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNASLOpt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 275
Total TN 23847
Total FP 154
Total FP CONTRA 28
Total FP INCONS 84
Total FP COMP 42
Total FN 156
Total Scores
MCC 0.668
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.714 ± 0.120
Sensitivity 0.638
Positive Predictive Value 0.711
Nr of predictions 29

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.48 0.39 0.64 7 517 4 0 4 0 11
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LHP_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 246 0 0 0 0 0
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 123 3 0 0 3 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.70 0.69 0.71 20 2412 13 1 7 5 9
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 2 0 0 2 0
2LWK_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 197 1 0 0 1 1
3J0L_2 - 0.49 0.46 0.52 12 2227 18 0 11 7 14
3J0L_8 - 0.74 0.57 1.00 4 72 0 0 0 0 3
3J0L_h - 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 2119 0 0 0 0 11
3J0L_7 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 506 13 3 10 0 10
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 174 4 0 2 2 2
3J0L_a - 0.21 0.18 0.29 2 404 6 3 2 1 9
3J0L_1 - 0.73 0.62 0.89 8 475 4 0 1 3 5
3J16_L 0.63 0.57 0.71 12 1142 5 0 5 0 9
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3TRZ_Z - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 87 2 0 0 2 0
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 112 1 0 0 1 0
3TS2_V - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 103 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3UZL_B 0.55 0.50 0.62 8 1280 9 1 4 4 8
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
4A1C_3 0.79 0.73 0.87 27 2732 5 0 4 1 10
4A1C_2 0.30 0.40 0.24 8 4482 35 13 13 9 12
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.31 0.28 0.38 8 1416 13 3 10 0 21
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.73 0.60 0.90 9 486 1 1 0 0 6

^top


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