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 RNAsubopt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNASampler(20) RNAsubopt
MCC 0.765 > 0.663
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.787 ± 0.078 > 0.680 ± 0.104
Sensitivity 0.671 < 0.686
Positive Predictive Value 0.875 > 0.647
Total TP 492 < 503
Total TN 77577 > 77362
Total FP 167 < 407
Total FP CONTRA 34 < 94
Total FP INCONS 36 < 180
Total FP COMP 97 < 133
Total FN 241 > 230
P-value 5.1503931209e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 RNAsubopt).

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

^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 492
Total TN 77577
Total FP 167
Total FP CONTRA 34
Total FP INCONS 36
Total FP COMP 97
Total FN 241
Total Scores
MCC 0.765
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.787 ± 0.078
Sensitivity 0.671
Positive Predictive Value 0.875
Nr of predictions 28

^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
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.41 0.65 39 25476 26 15 6 5 56
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 RNAsubopt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAsubopt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 503
Total TN 77362
Total FP 407
Total FP CONTRA 94
Total FP INCONS 180
Total FP COMP 133
Total FN 230
Total Scores
MCC 0.663
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.680 ± 0.104
Sensitivity 0.686
Positive Predictive Value 0.647
Nr of predictions 28

^top



2. Individual counts for RNAsubopt [ 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 339 1 0 0 1 0
2WRQ_Y 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 1143 13 0 0 13 0
2XKV_B 0.64 0.73 0.57 8 1821 25 0 6 19 3
2XQD_Y 0.83 0.81 0.85 17 1109 4 0 3 1 4
2XXA_G 0.49 0.49 0.52 17 2012 17 1 15 1 18
3A2K_C 0.47 0.50 0.46 11 1084 13 3 10 0 11
3AMU_B 0.81 0.79 0.83 15 1139 6 0 3 3 4
3G4S_9 0.41 0.46 0.38 12 2704 25 7 13 5 14
3GX2_A 0.53 0.54 0.54 15 1421 14 4 9 1 13
3IVN_B 0.88 0.78 1.00 18 885 0 0 0 0 5
3IZ4_A 0.56 0.60 0.53 57 25429 54 26 24 4 38
3IZF_C 0.89 0.91 0.86 32 2603 9 0 5 4 3
3JYV_7 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 1090 21 4 17 0 20
3JYX_3 0.77 0.80 0.75 12 2362 26 0 4 22 3
3JYX_4 0.34 0.58 0.21 7 4722 38 20 7 11 5
3LA5_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 21 933 0 0 0 0 4
3NPB_A 0.84 0.78 0.91 29 2246 8 0 3 5 8
3O58_2 0.87 0.90 0.85 28 2721 13 0 5 8 3
3O58_3 0.41 0.50 0.34 11 4732 35 6 15 14 11
3PDR_A 0.90 0.90 0.90 45 4790 7 2 3 2 5
3RKF_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 846 0 0 0 0 4
3SD1_A 0.73 0.72 0.75 21 1505 7 4 3 0 8
4A1C_3 0.85 0.84 0.86 31 2727 8 0 5 3 6
4A1C_2 0.18 0.25 0.14 5 4481 43 13 17 13 15
4AOB_A 0.62 0.62 0.64 18 1409 11 4 6 1 11
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4
4ENC_A 0.36 0.33 0.42 5 484 7 0 7 0 10

^top


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