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 Contrafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Contrafold RNASLOpt
MCC 0.745 > 0.679
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.777 ± 0.116 > 0.723 ± 0.118
Sensitivity 0.737 > 0.649
Positive Predictive Value 0.763 > 0.721
Total TP 328 > 289
Total TN 23993 < 24022
Total FP 155 > 154
Total FP CONTRA 24 < 28
Total FP INCONS 78 < 84
Total FP COMP 53 > 42
Total FN 117 < 156
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of Contrafold 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 Contrafold and RNASLOpt).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for Contrafold 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 Contrafold and RNASLOpt).

^top





Performance of Contrafold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Contrafold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 328
Total TN 23993
Total FP 155
Total FP CONTRA 24
Total FP INCONS 78
Total FP COMP 53
Total FN 117
Total Scores
MCC 0.745
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.777 ± 0.116
Sensitivity 0.737
Positive Predictive Value 0.763
Nr of predictions 30

^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
2LC8_A 0.46 0.39 0.58 7 516 5 3 2 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
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 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 - 0.88 0.90 0.87 26 2410 11 0 4 7 3
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 2 0 0 2 0
2LWK_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 196 1 0 0 1 0
3J0L_8 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 69 0 0 0 0 0
3J0L_a - 0.53 0.55 0.55 6 400 6 3 2 1 5
3J0L_1 - 0.83 0.77 0.91 10 473 3 0 1 2 3
3J0L_h - 0.87 0.88 0.88 28 2108 6 0 4 2 4
3J0L_7 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 512 7 1 6 0 10
3J0L_g - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 176 1 0 0 1 2
3J0L_2 - 0.28 0.31 0.28 8 2221 26 2 19 5 18
3J16_L 0.55 0.57 0.55 12 1137 10 3 7 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 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 - 0.81 0.77 0.85 17 1256 5 0 3 2 5
3UZL_B 0.90 0.88 0.93 14 1278 8 0 1 7 2
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
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
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
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



Performance of RNASLOpt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNASLOpt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 289
Total TN 24022
Total FP 154
Total FP CONTRA 28
Total FP INCONS 84
Total FP COMP 42
Total FN 156
Total Scores
MCC 0.679
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.723 ± 0.118
Sensitivity 0.649
Positive Predictive Value 0.721
Nr of predictions 30

^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
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 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_8 - 0.74 0.57 1.00 4 72 0 0 0 0 3
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
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_2 - 0.49 0.46 0.52 12 2227 18 0 11 7 14
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.