 | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | ||||||||||||||
Table of contents:
- Overview
- Performance Plots
- Performance of CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison
- Performance of RNAwolf - scored lower in this pairwise comparison
- Compile and download dataset for CentroidHomfold‑LAST & RNAwolf [.zip] - may take several seconds...
Overview
| Metric | CentroidHomfold‑LAST | RNAwolf | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCC | 0.783 | > | 0.585 |
| Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals | 0.792 ± 0.107 | > | 0.628 ± 0.123 |
| Sensitivity | 0.697 | > | 0.575 |
| Positive Predictive Value | 0.887 | > | 0.611 |
| Total TP | 384 | > | 317 |
| Total TN | 29017 | > | 28931 |
| Total FP | 89 | < | 266 |
| Total FP CONTRA | 10 | < | 37 |
| Total FP INCONS | 39 | < | 165 |
| Total FP COMP | 40 | < | 64 |
| Total FN | 167 | < | 234 |
| P-value | 3.56938820447e-08 | ||
Performance plots
-
Comparison of performance of CentroidHomfold-LAST and RNAwolf. 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 RNAwolf).
-
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 CentroidHomfold‑LAST and RNAwolf).
-
Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidHomfold-LAST and RNAwolf. 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 RNAwolf).
Performance of CentroidHomfold‑LAST - scored higher in this pairwise comparison
1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidHomfold‑LAST
| Total Base Pair Counts | |
|---|---|
| Total TP | 384 |
| Total TN | 29017 |
| Total FP | 89 |
| Total FP CONTRA | 10 |
| Total FP INCONS | 39 |
| Total FP COMP | 40 |
| Total FN | 167 |
| Total Scores | |
|---|---|
| MCC | 0.783 |
| Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals | 0.792 ± 0.107 |
| Sensitivity | 0.697 |
| Positive Predictive Value | 0.887 |
| Nr of predictions | 37 |
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 |
| 2LBS_A | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 14 | 193 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 |
| 2LDT_A | - | 0.84 | 0.73 | 1.00 | 8 | 154 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 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 |
| 2YIE_X | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 7 | 537 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2YIE_Z | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 8 | 594 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3AMU_B | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 18 | 1138 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |
| 3J0L_7 | - | 0.83 | 0.70 | 1.00 | 7 | 512 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| 3J0L_8 | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 7 | 69 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 |
| 3J0L_h | - | 0.88 | 0.84 | 0.93 | 27 | 2111 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 5 |
| 3J0L_g | - | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 176 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 3J0L_2 | - | 0.55 | 0.31 | 1.00 | 8 | 2242 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 |
| 3J16_L | 0.90 | 0.81 | 1.00 | 17 | 1142 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | |
| 3RKF_A | 0.86 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 18 | 848 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | |
| 3SD1_A | 0.77 | 0.66 | 0.90 | 19 | 1512 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 10 | |
| 3SIU_F | - | 0.86 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 6 | 139 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 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 |
Performance of RNAwolf - scored lower in this pairwise comparison
1. Total counts & total scores for RNAwolf
| Total Base Pair Counts | |
|---|---|
| Total TP | 317 |
| Total TN | 28931 |
| Total FP | 266 |
| Total FP CONTRA | 37 |
| Total FP INCONS | 165 |
| Total FP COMP | 64 |
| Total FN | 234 |
| Total Scores | |
|---|---|
| MCC | 0.585 |
| Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals | 0.628 ± 0.123 |
| Sensitivity | 0.575 |
| Positive Predictive Value | 0.611 |
| Nr of predictions | 37 |
2. Individual counts for RNAwolf [ download as .csv ]
| RNA Chain | Rfam family | MCC | SENS | PPV | TP | TN | FP | FP CONTRA | FP INCONS | FP COMP | FN |
| 2LBS_A | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 14 | 193 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2LC8_A | 0.52 | 0.50 | 0.56 | 9 | 512 | 7 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 9 | |
| 2LDL_A | - | 0.88 | 0.78 | 1.00 | 7 | 133 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2LDT_A | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 11 | 151 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2LHP_A | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 15 | 246 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 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 | - | 0.84 | 0.79 | 0.88 | 23 | 2414 | 11 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 6 |
| 2LQZ_A | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 8 | 124 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 2LWK_A | - | 0.48 | 0.45 | 0.56 | 5 | 198 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 6 |
| 2YIE_X | - | -0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 536 | 11 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 7 |
| 2YIE_Z | - | 0.62 | 0.63 | 0.63 | 5 | 594 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 |
| 3AMU_B | 0.77 | 0.79 | 0.75 | 15 | 1137 | 8 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 4 | |
| 3J0L_7 | - | -0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 509 | 10 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 10 |
| 3J0L_8 | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 7 | 69 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3J0L_a | - | 0.14 | 0.18 | 0.14 | 2 | 397 | 13 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 9 |
| 3J0L_1 | - | 0.68 | 0.54 | 0.88 | 7 | 476 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 6 |
| 3J0L_h | - | 0.47 | 0.41 | 0.57 | 13 | 2117 | 12 | 1 | 9 | 2 | 19 |
| 3J0L_g | - | -0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 171 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| 3J0L_2 | - | 0.14 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 4 | 2223 | 26 | 4 | 19 | 3 | 22 |
| 3J16_L | 0.58 | 0.57 | 0.60 | 12 | 1139 | 9 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 9 | |
| 3RKF_A | 0.89 | 0.83 | 0.95 | 20 | 845 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | |
| 3SD1_A | 0.58 | 0.59 | 0.59 | 17 | 1504 | 12 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 12 | |
| 3SIU_F | - | 0.86 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 6 | 139 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 3SN2_B | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 12 | 142 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3TRZ_Z | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 5 | 87 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3TS0_U | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 6 | 112 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 3TS2_V | - | -0.05 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 103 | 6 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 5 |
| 3U4M_B | - | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.52 | 11 | 1255 | 12 | 1 | 9 | 2 | 11 |
| 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 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 4A1C_3 | 0.32 | 0.30 | 0.35 | 11 | 2732 | 21 | 1 | 19 | 1 | 26 | |
| 4A1C_2 | 0.12 | 0.15 | 0.10 | 3 | 4487 | 38 | 12 | 14 | 12 | 17 | |
| 4A4U_A | - | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 9 | 96 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4AOB_A | 0.26 | 0.24 | 0.30 | 7 | 1414 | 17 | 2 | 14 | 1 | 22 | |
| 4ENB_A | 0.45 | 0.40 | 0.55 | 6 | 461 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 9 | |
| 4ENC_A | 0.34 | 0.33 | 0.38 | 5 | 483 | 9 | 0 | 8 | 1 | 10 |
Matthews Correlation Coeffient, Sensitivity and Positive Predictive Value have been calculated based on the paper by Gardener & Giegerich, 2004.