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 UNAFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

  5. Compile and download dataset for UNAFold & RNASLOpt [.zip] - may take several seconds...


Overview

Metric UNAFold RNASLOpt
MCC 0.690 > 0.679
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.739 ± 0.124 > 0.723 ± 0.118
Sensitivity 0.697 > 0.649
Positive Predictive Value 0.695 < 0.721
Total TP 310 > 289
Total TN 23977 < 24022
Total FP 194 > 154
Total FP CONTRA 34 > 28
Total FP INCONS 102 > 84
Total FP COMP 58 > 42
Total FN 135 < 156
P-value 5.90626908729e-06

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of UNAFold and RNASLOpt. 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 UNAFold and RNASLOpt).

  2. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for UNAFold and RNASLOpt. 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 UNAFold and RNASLOpt).

^top





Performance of UNAFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for UNAFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 310
Total TN 23977
Total FP 194
Total FP CONTRA 34
Total FP INCONS 102
Total FP COMP 58
Total FN 135
Total Scores
MCC 0.690
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.739 ± 0.124
Sensitivity 0.697
Positive Predictive Value 0.695
Nr of predictions 30

^top



2. Individual counts for UNAFold [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A -0.03 0.00 0.00 0 513 15 3 12 0 18
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LHP_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 246 0 0 0 0 0
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 123 3 0 0 3 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 29 2411 6 0 0 6 0
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 2 0 0 2 0
2LWK_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 197 1 0 0 1 1
3J0L_8 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 69 0 0 0 0 0
3J0L_a - 0.55 0.64 0.50 7 397 8 5 2 1 4
3J0L_1 - 0.75 0.69 0.82 9 473 4 0 2 2 4
3J0L_h - 0.87 0.81 0.93 26 2112 4 1 1 2 6
3J0L_7 - 0.66 0.70 0.64 7 508 5 2 2 1 3
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 174 4 0 2 2 2
3J0L_2 - 0.30 0.31 0.31 8 2224 25 2 16 7 18
3J16_L 0.31 0.33 0.30 7 1136 16 3 13 0 14
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3TRZ_Z - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 87 1 0 0 1 0
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 112 1 0 0 1 0
3TS2_V - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 103 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3UZL_B 0.49 0.50 0.50 8 1277 15 0 8 7 8
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
4A1C_3 0.88 0.86 0.89 32 2727 7 0 4 3 5
4A1C_2 0.19 0.25 0.15 5 4483 42 11 17 14 15
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.60 0.59 0.63 17 1410 11 4 6 1 12
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 2 0 0 2 4
4ENC_A 0.37 0.33 0.45 5 485 7 0 6 1 10

^top



Performance of RNASLOpt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNASLOpt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 289
Total TN 24022
Total FP 154
Total FP CONTRA 28
Total FP INCONS 84
Total FP COMP 42
Total FN 156
Total Scores
MCC 0.679
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.723 ± 0.118
Sensitivity 0.649
Positive Predictive Value 0.721
Nr of predictions 30

^top



2. Individual counts for RNASLOpt [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.48 0.39 0.64 7 517 4 0 4 0 11
2LDL_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 131 1 0 0 1 0
2LHP_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 15 246 0 0 0 0 0
2LI4_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 175 0 0 0 0 0
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 123 3 0 0 3 0
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 91 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.70 0.69 0.71 20 2412 13 1 7 5 9
2LQZ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 124 2 0 0 2 0
2LWK_A - 0.95 0.91 1.00 10 197 1 0 0 1 1
3J0L_8 - 0.74 0.57 1.00 4 72 0 0 0 0 3
3J0L_a - 0.21 0.18 0.29 2 404 6 3 2 1 9
3J0L_1 - 0.73 0.62 0.89 8 475 4 0 1 3 5
3J0L_h - 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 2119 0 0 0 0 11
3J0L_7 - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 506 13 3 10 0 10
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 174 4 0 2 2 2
3J0L_2 - 0.49 0.46 0.52 12 2227 18 0 11 7 14
3J16_L 0.63 0.57 0.71 12 1142 5 0 5 0 9
3SN2_B 0.95 0.92 1.00 11 143 0 0 0 0 1
3TRZ_Z - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 87 2 0 0 2 0
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 112 1 0 0 1 0
3TS2_V - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 103 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.49 0.55 0.46 12 1250 14 3 11 0 10
3UZL_B 0.55 0.50 0.62 8 1280 9 1 4 4 8
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 239 0 0 0 0 0
4A1C_3 0.79 0.73 0.87 27 2732 5 0 4 1 10
4A1C_2 0.30 0.40 0.24 8 4482 35 13 13 9 12
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 96 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.31 0.28 0.38 8 1416 13 3 10 0 21
4ENB_A 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 461 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.73 0.60 0.90 9 486 1 1 0 0 6

^top


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