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 Murlet(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric RNAsubopt Murlet(seed)
MCC 0.722 > 0.620
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.729 ± 0.114 > 0.616 ± 0.071
Sensitivity 0.734 > 0.442
Positive Predictive Value 0.719 < 0.879
Total TP 433 > 261
Total TN 38945 < 39250
Total FP 242 > 49
Total FP CONTRA 57 > 4
Total FP INCONS 112 > 32
Total FP COMP 73 > 13
Total FN 157 < 329
P-value 5.23657817852e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of RNAsubopt and Murlet(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 RNAsubopt and Murlet(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 RNAsubopt and Murlet(seed)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for RNAsubopt and Murlet(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 RNAsubopt and Murlet(seed)).

^top





Performance of RNAsubopt - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAsubopt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 433
Total TN 38945
Total FP 242
Total FP CONTRA 57
Total FP INCONS 112
Total FP COMP 73
Total FN 157
Total Scores
MCC 0.722
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.729 ± 0.114
Sensitivity 0.734
Positive Predictive Value 0.719
Nr of predictions 26

^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
2KE6_A 0.88 0.89 0.89 16 449 3 0 2 1 2
2KUR_A 0.89 0.89 0.89 17 448 2 0 2 0 2
2KUU_A 0.88 0.89 0.89 16 429 3 0 2 1 2
2KUV_A 0.89 0.89 0.89 17 420 2 0 2 0 2
2KUW_A 0.94 0.94 0.94 17 452 2 0 1 1 1
2L1F_A 0.95 0.91 1.00 21 742 0 0 0 0 2
2L1F_B 0.96 0.92 1.00 22 769 0 0 0 0 2
2L94_A 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 339 1 0 0 1 0
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
2XKV_B 0.64 0.73 0.57 8 1821 25 0 6 19 3
2XXA_G 0.49 0.49 0.52 17 2012 17 1 15 1 18
3A3A_A 0.97 0.93 1.00 28 1472 0 0 0 0 2
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
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_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_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 Murlet(seed) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 261
Total TN 39250
Total FP 49
Total FP CONTRA 4
Total FP INCONS 32
Total FP COMP 13
Total FN 329
Total Scores
MCC 0.620
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.616 ± 0.071
Sensitivity 0.442
Positive Predictive Value 0.879
Nr of predictions 26

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KDQ_B 0.54 0.30 1.00 3 171 0 0 0 0 7
2KE6_A 0.67 0.56 0.83 10 455 2 0 2 0 8
2KUR_A 0.65 0.53 0.83 10 455 2 0 2 0 9
2KUU_A 0.67 0.56 0.83 10 435 2 0 2 0 8
2KUV_A 0.91 0.84 1.00 16 423 0 0 0 0 3
2KUW_A 0.88 0.83 0.94 15 454 2 0 1 1 3
2L1F_A 0.83 0.78 0.90 18 743 2 0 2 0 5
2L1F_B 0.82 0.75 0.90 18 771 2 0 2 0 6
2L94_A 0.57 0.39 0.88 7 349 2 0 1 1 11
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 516 12 0 12 0 18
2XKV_B 0.60 0.36 1.00 4 1831 2 0 0 2 7
2XXA_G 0.41 0.17 1.00 6 2039 0 0 0 0 29
3A3A_A 0.63 0.40 1.00 12 1488 0 0 0 0 18
3GX2_A 0.70 0.50 1.00 14 1435 1 0 0 1 14
3IVN_B 0.62 0.52 0.75 12 887 4 2 2 0 11
3JYX_4 0.50 0.25 1.00 3 4753 4 0 0 4 9
3LA5_A 0.67 0.56 0.82 14 937 3 1 2 0 11
3NPB_A 0.59 0.35 1.00 13 2265 2 0 0 2 24
3O58_3 0.52 0.27 1.00 6 4758 1 0 0 1 16
3PDR_A 0.53 0.28 1.00 14 4826 0 0 0 0 36
3RKF_A 0.62 0.50 0.80 12 851 3 1 2 0 12
3SD1_A 0.56 0.38 0.85 11 1520 2 0 2 0 18
4A1C_2 0.59 0.35 1.00 7 4509 0 0 0 0 13
4AOB_A 0.69 0.48 1.00 14 1423 1 0 0 1 15
4ENB_A 0.63 0.40 1.00 6 466 0 0 0 0 9
4ENC_A 0.63 0.40 1.00 6 490 0 0 0 0 9

^top


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