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 MCFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Carnac(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

  5. Compile and download dataset for MCFold & Carnac(seed) [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric MCFold Carnac(seed)
MCC 0.639 > 0.314
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.659 ± 0.118 > 0.181 ± 0.129
Sensitivity 0.684 > 0.100
Positive Predictive Value 0.606 < 1.000
Total TP 439 > 64
Total TN 45643 < 46303
Total FP 372 > 1
Total FP CONTRA 85 > 0
Total FP INCONS 200 > 0
Total FP COMP 87 > 1
Total FN 203 < 578
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of MCFold and Carnac(seed). 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 MCFold and Carnac(seed)).

  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 MCFold and Carnac(seed)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for MCFold and Carnac(seed). 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 MCFold and Carnac(seed)).

^top





Performance of MCFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MCFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 439
Total TN 45643
Total FP 372
Total FP CONTRA 85
Total FP INCONS 200
Total FP COMP 87
Total FN 203
Total Scores
MCC 0.639
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.659 ± 0.118
Sensitivity 0.684
Positive Predictive Value 0.606
Nr of predictions 28

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 164 1 0 0 1 0
2KE6_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 449 1 0 0 1 0
2KUR_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 448 0 0 0 0 0
2KUU_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 429 1 0 0 1 0
2KUV_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 420 0 0 0 0 0
2KUW_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 452 1 0 0 1 0
2L1F_A 0.79 0.78 0.82 18 741 4 0 4 0 5
2L1F_B 0.80 0.79 0.83 19 768 4 0 4 0 5
2L94_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 339 1 0 0 1 0
2LC8_A 0.44 0.44 0.47 8 511 10 0 9 1 10
2XKV_B 0.20 0.27 0.16 3 1816 30 4 12 14 8
2XXA_G 0.23 0.26 0.24 9 2007 30 1 28 1 26
3A3A_A 0.98 0.97 1.00 29 1471 0 0 0 0 1
3GX2_A 0.58 0.61 0.57 17 1419 15 1 12 2 11
3IVN_B 0.45 0.48 0.46 11 879 14 5 8 1 12
3IZF_C 0.92 0.94 0.89 33 2603 10 0 4 6 2
3JYX_4 0.36 0.58 0.23 7 4725 37 19 5 13 5
3JYX_3 0.46 0.67 0.32 10 2347 28 15 6 7 5
3LA5_A 0.44 0.44 0.48 11 931 12 2 10 0 14
3O58_3 0.28 0.36 0.22 8 4727 39 14 15 10 14
3O58_2 0.25 0.29 0.23 9 2715 31 6 24 1 22
3PDR_A 0.78 0.80 0.77 40 4788 14 5 7 2 10
3RKF_A 0.89 0.88 0.91 21 843 3 0 2 1 3
3SD1_A 0.43 0.45 0.43 13 1503 17 1 16 0 16
4A1C_2 0.18 0.25 0.14 5 4480 45 12 19 14 15
4A1C_3 0.86 0.86 0.86 32 2726 9 0 5 4 5
4ENB_A 0.78 0.73 0.85 11 459 4 0 2 2 4
4ENC_A 0.34 0.33 0.38 5 483 11 0 8 3 10

^top



Performance of Carnac(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Carnac(seed)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 64
Total TN 46303
Total FP 1
Total FP CONTRA 0
Total FP INCONS 0
Total FP COMP 1
Total FN 578
Total Scores
MCC 0.314
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.181 ± 0.129
Sensitivity 0.100
Positive Predictive Value 1.000
Nr of predictions 28

^top



2. Individual counts for Carnac(seed) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 164 0 0 0 0 0
2KE6_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 467 0 0 0 0 18
2KUR_A 0.60 0.37 1.00 7 460 0 0 0 0 12
2KUU_A 0.62 0.39 1.00 7 440 0 0 0 0 11
2KUV_A 0.68 0.47 1.00 9 430 0 0 0 0 10
2KUW_A 0.70 0.50 1.00 9 461 0 0 0 0 9
2L1F_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 763 0 0 0 0 23
2L1F_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 791 0 0 0 0 24
2L94_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 339 1 0 0 1 0
2LC8_A 0.47 0.22 1.00 4 524 0 0 0 0 14
2XKV_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1835 0 0 0 0 11
2XXA_G 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2045 0 0 0 0 35
3A3A_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1500 0 0 0 0 30
3GX2_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1449 0 0 0 0 28
3IVN_B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 903 0 0 0 0 23
3IZF_C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2640 0 0 0 0 35
3JYX_4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4756 0 0 0 0 12
3JYX_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2378 0 0 0 0 15
3LA5_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 954 0 0 0 0 25
3O58_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4764 0 0 0 0 22
3O58_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2754 0 0 0 0 31
3PDR_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4840 0 0 0 0 50
3RKF_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 866 0 0 0 0 24
3SD1_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1533 0 0 0 0 29
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4516 0 0 0 0 20
4A1C_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 2763 0 0 0 0 37
4ENB_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 472 0 0 0 0 15
4ENC_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 496 0 0 0 0 15

^top


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