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 RNASampler(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for RNASampler(20) & MCFold [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric RNASampler(20) MCFold
MCC 0.810 > 0.520
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.806 ± 0.089 > 0.519 ± 0.113
Sensitivity 0.734 > 0.579
Positive Predictive Value 0.897 > 0.479
Total TP 401 > 316
Total TN 45705 > 45492
Total FP 128 < 439
Total FP CONTRA 19 < 110
Total FP INCONS 27 < 234
Total FP COMP 82 < 95
Total FN 145 < 230
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNASampler(20) and MCFold. 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 RNASampler(20) and MCFold).

  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 RNASampler(20) and MCFold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNASampler(20) and MCFold. 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 RNASampler(20) and MCFold).

^top





Performance of RNASampler(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNASampler(20)

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 401
Total TN 45705
Total FP 128
Total FP CONTRA 19
Total FP INCONS 27
Total FP COMP 82
Total FN 145
Total Scores
MCC 0.810
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.806 ± 0.089
Sensitivity 0.734
Positive Predictive Value 0.897
Nr of predictions 24

^top



2. Individual counts for RNASampler(20) [ 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
2L94_A 0.94 0.94 0.94 17 339 2 0 1 1 1
2WRQ_Y 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 1143 14 0 0 14 0
2XKV_B 0.60 0.36 1.00 4 1831 2 0 0 2 7
2XQD_Y 0.98 0.95 1.00 20 1109 1 0 0 1 1
2XXA_G 0.34 0.11 1.00 4 2041 0 0 0 0 31
3A2K_C 0.98 0.95 1.00 21 1087 0 0 0 0 1
3AMU_B 0.95 0.95 0.95 18 1138 4 0 1 3 1
3GX2_A 0.88 0.79 1.00 22 1427 1 0 0 1 6
3IVN_B 0.91 0.83 1.00 19 884 0 0 0 0 4
3IZF_C 0.92 0.86 1.00 30 2610 2 0 0 2 5
3JYV_7 0.97 0.95 1.00 19 1092 2 0 0 2 1
3JYX_3 0.70 0.60 0.82 9 2367 14 0 2 12 6
3JYX_4 0.61 0.83 0.45 10 4734 26 10 2 14 2
3LA5_A 0.89 0.80 1.00 20 934 0 0 0 0 5
3O58_3 0.51 0.50 0.52 11 4743 19 5 5 9 11
3O58_2 0.93 0.87 1.00 27 2727 5 0 0 5 4
3PDR_A 0.84 0.76 0.93 38 4799 5 1 2 2 12
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.81 0.69 0.95 20 1512 1 0 1 0 9
4A1C_2 0.24 0.25 0.24 5 4495 30 3 13 14 15
4A1C_3 0.90 0.81 1.00 30 2733 0 0 0 0 7
4ENB_A 0.68 0.47 1.00 7 465 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 485 0 0 0 0 4

^top



Performance of MCFold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for MCFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 316
Total TN 45492
Total FP 439
Total FP CONTRA 110
Total FP INCONS 234
Total FP COMP 95
Total FN 230
Total Scores
MCC 0.520
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.519 ± 0.113
Sensitivity 0.579
Positive Predictive Value 0.479
Nr of predictions 24

^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
2L94_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 339 1 0 0 1 0
2WRQ_Y 0.38 0.56 0.26 5 1133 21 8 6 7 4
2XKV_B 0.20 0.27 0.16 3 1816 30 4 12 14 8
2XQD_Y 0.39 0.43 0.38 9 1105 18 2 13 3 12
2XXA_G 0.23 0.26 0.24 9 2007 30 1 28 1 26
3A2K_C 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1082 14 3 11 0 10
3AMU_B 0.50 0.58 0.44 11 1132 15 4 10 1 8
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
3JYV_7 0.25 0.30 0.24 6 1086 20 8 11 1 14
3JYX_3 0.46 0.67 0.32 10 2347 28 15 6 7 5
3JYX_4 0.36 0.58 0.23 7 4725 37 19 5 13 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


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