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 RNAsubopt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

  4. Performance of Mastr(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNAsubopt Mastr(20)
MCC 0.663 > 0.636
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.680 ± 0.104 > 0.618 ± 0.136
Sensitivity 0.686 > 0.483
Positive Predictive Value 0.647 < 0.845
Total TP 503 > 354
Total TN 77362 < 77720
Total FP 407 > 137
Total FP CONTRA 94 > 12
Total FP INCONS 180 > 53
Total FP COMP 133 > 72
Total FN 230 < 379
P-value 4.27071136365e-07

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 RNAsubopt and Mastr(20)).

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

^top





Performance of RNAsubopt - scored higher 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



Performance of Mastr(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 354
Total TN 77720
Total FP 137
Total FP CONTRA 12
Total FP INCONS 53
Total FP COMP 72
Total FN 379
Total Scores
MCC 0.636
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.618 ± 0.136
Sensitivity 0.483
Positive Predictive Value 0.845
Nr of predictions 28

^top



2. Individual counts for Mastr(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 0.88 0.83 0.94 15 341 2 0 1 1 3
2WRQ_Y 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 1143 13 0 0 13 0
2XKV_B 0.60 0.36 1.00 4 1831 3 0 0 3 7
2XQD_Y 0.98 0.95 1.00 20 1109 1 0 0 1 1
2XXA_G 0.44 0.20 1.00 7 2038 0 0 0 0 28
3A2K_C 0.81 0.77 0.85 17 1088 3 0 3 0 5
3AMU_B 0.89 0.79 1.00 15 1142 2 0 0 2 4
3G4S_9 0.68 0.62 0.76 16 2715 10 2 3 5 10
3GX2_A 0.46 0.39 0.55 11 1429 10 2 7 1 17
3IVN_B 0.86 0.83 0.90 19 882 2 2 0 0 4
3IZ4_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 25536 0 0 0 0 95
3IZF_C 0.91 0.91 0.91 32 2605 9 0 3 6 3
3JYV_7 0.97 0.95 1.00 19 1092 2 0 0 2 1
3JYX_3 0.77 0.80 0.75 12 2362 26 0 4 22 3
3JYX_4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4756 0 0 0 0 12
3LA5_A 0.89 0.80 1.00 20 934 0 0 0 0 5
3NPB_A 0.34 0.30 0.41 11 2251 18 1 15 2 26
3O58_2 0.93 0.94 0.94 29 2723 12 0 2 10 2
3O58_3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4764 0 0 0 0 22
3PDR_A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4840 0 0 0 0 50
3RKF_A 0.84 0.71 1.00 17 849 0 0 0 0 7
3SD1_A 0.73 0.72 0.75 21 1505 7 4 3 0 8
4A1C_3 0.88 0.86 0.89 32 2727 7 0 4 3 5
4A1C_2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4516 0 0 0 0 20
4AOB_A 0.42 0.34 0.53 10 1418 10 1 8 1 19
4ENB_A 0.44 0.20 1.00 3 469 0 0 0 0 12
4ENC_A 0.57 0.33 1.00 5 491 0 0 0 0 10

^top


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