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 Pknots - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNASampler(20) Pknots
MCC 0.798 > 0.639
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.797 ± 0.079 > 0.685 ± 0.120
Sensitivity 0.710 > 0.683
Positive Predictive Value 0.902 > 0.606
Total TP 453 > 436
Total TN 52101 > 51884
Total FP 141 < 379
Total FP CONTRA 19 < 104
Total FP INCONS 30 < 179
Total FP COMP 92 < 96
Total FN 185 < 202
P-value 5.19332990918e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 Pknots).

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

^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 453
Total TN 52101
Total FP 141
Total FP CONTRA 19
Total FP INCONS 30
Total FP COMP 92
Total FN 185
Total Scores
MCC 0.798
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.797 ± 0.079
Sensitivity 0.710
Positive Predictive Value 0.902
Nr of predictions 27

^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
3G4S_9 0.73 0.54 1.00 14 2722 4 0 0 4 12
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
3NPB_A 0.75 0.57 1.00 21 2257 5 0 0 5 16
3O58_2 0.93 0.87 1.00 27 2727 5 0 0 5 4
3O58_3 0.51 0.50 0.52 11 4743 19 5 5 9 11
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_3 0.90 0.81 1.00 30 2733 0 0 0 0 7
4A1C_2 0.24 0.25 0.24 5 4495 30 3 13 14 15
4AOB_A 0.70 0.59 0.85 17 1417 4 0 3 1 12
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 Pknots - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Pknots

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 436
Total TN 51884
Total FP 379
Total FP CONTRA 104
Total FP INCONS 179
Total FP COMP 96
Total FN 202
Total Scores
MCC 0.639
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.685 ± 0.120
Sensitivity 0.683
Positive Predictive Value 0.606
Nr of predictions 27

^top



2. Individual counts for Pknots [ 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 13 0 0 13 0
2XKV_B 0.21 0.27 0.17 3 1817 33 3 12 18 8
2XQD_Y 0.98 0.95 1.00 20 1109 1 0 0 1 1
2XXA_G 0.32 0.34 0.32 12 2008 26 1 24 1 23
3A2K_C 0.50 0.55 0.48 12 1083 13 3 10 0 10
3AMU_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 1138 3 0 0 3 0
3G4S_9 0.37 0.46 0.31 12 2697 27 14 13 0 14
3GX2_A 0.55 0.57 0.55 16 1420 14 4 9 1 12
3IVN_B 0.91 0.87 0.95 20 882 1 0 1 0 3
3IZF_C 0.89 0.91 0.86 32 2603 9 0 5 4 3
3JYV_7 0.97 0.95 1.00 19 1092 2 0 0 2 1
3JYX_3 0.37 0.53 0.27 8 2348 26 17 5 4 7
3JYX_4 0.33 0.58 0.19 7 4720 41 22 7 12 5
3LA5_A 0.94 0.88 1.00 22 932 0 0 0 0 3
3NPB_A 0.84 0.81 0.88 30 2244 9 0 4 5 7
3O58_2 0.93 0.90 0.97 28 2725 3 0 1 2 3
3O58_3 0.32 0.45 0.24 10 4722 39 18 14 7 12
3PDR_A 0.64 0.64 0.65 32 4791 19 4 13 2 18
3RKF_A 0.91 0.88 0.95 21 844 1 0 1 0 3
3SD1_A 0.78 0.76 0.81 22 1506 5 1 4 0 7
4A1C_3 0.28 0.30 0.28 11 2723 30 4 25 1 26
4A1C_2 0.33 0.40 0.29 8 4488 36 9 11 16 12
4AOB_A 0.19 0.21 0.21 6 1409 23 3 19 1 23
4ENB_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 457 2 0 0 2 0
4ENC_A 0.97 1.00 0.94 15 480 1 1 0 0 0

^top


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