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 HotKnots - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric HotKnots NanoFolder
MCC 0.728 > 0.562
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.792 ± 0.143 > 0.702 ± 0.166
Sensitivity 0.749 > 0.656
Positive Predictive Value 0.717 > 0.495
Total TP 218 > 191
Total TN 16882 > 16800
Total FP 123 < 228
Total FP CONTRA 23 < 73
Total FP INCONS 63 < 122
Total FP COMP 37 > 33
Total FN 73 < 100
P-value 2.78993384543e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of HotKnots and NanoFolder. 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 HotKnots and NanoFolder).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for HotKnots and NanoFolder. 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 HotKnots and NanoFolder).

^top





Performance of HotKnots - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for HotKnots

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 218
Total TN 16882
Total FP 123
Total FP CONTRA 23
Total FP INCONS 63
Total FP COMP 37
Total FN 73
Total Scores
MCC 0.728
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.792 ± 0.143
Sensitivity 0.749
Positive Predictive Value 0.717
Nr of predictions 17

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.64 0.61 0.69 11 512 5 0 5 0 7
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 29 2411 8 0 0 8 0
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
3J16_L 0.31 0.33 0.30 7 1136 16 3 13 0 14
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3UZL_B 0.49 0.50 0.50 8 1277 15 0 8 7 8
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
4A1C_3 0.88 0.86 0.89 32 2727 7 0 4 3 5
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4483 42 12 16 14 15
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ENC_A 0.97 1.00 0.94 15 480 1 1 0 0 0

^top



Performance of NanoFolder - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for NanoFolder

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 191
Total TN 16800
Total FP 228
Total FP CONTRA 73
Total FP INCONS 122
Total FP COMP 33
Total FN 100
Total Scores
MCC 0.562
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.702 ± 0.166
Sensitivity 0.656
Positive Predictive Value 0.495
Nr of predictions 17

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.54 0.61 0.50 11 506 11 1 10 0 7
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.26 0.34 0.21 10 2392 41 15 23 3 19
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 3 0 0 3 0
2LWK_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 197 2 0 0 2 1
3J16_L 0.43 0.52 0.37 11 1129 19 8 11 0 10
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3U4M_B - 0.77 0.91 0.67 20 1246 12 6 4 2 2
3UZL_B 0.41 0.56 0.31 9 1264 25 10 10 5 7
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
4A1C_3 0.58 0.68 0.51 25 2714 24 9 15 0 12
4A1C_2 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 4469 61 18 29 14 20
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.39 0.41 0.39 12 1406 20 4 15 1 17
4ENC_A 0.66 0.73 0.61 11 478 9 2 5 2 4

^top


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