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 CentroidAlifold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric CentroidAlifold(20) Sfold
MCC 0.680 > 0.589
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.670 ± 0.063 > 0.592 ± 0.087
Sensitivity 0.520 > 0.495
Positive Predictive Value 0.892 > 0.706
Total TP 519 > 494
Total TN 201737 > 201619
Total FP 102 < 269
Total FP CONTRA 13 < 25
Total FP INCONS 50 < 181
Total FP COMP 39 < 63
Total FN 479 < 504
P-value 5.1503931209e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidAlifold(20) and Sfold. 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 CentroidAlifold(20) and Sfold).

  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 CentroidAlifold(20) and Sfold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidAlifold(20) and Sfold. 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 CentroidAlifold(20) and Sfold).

^top





Performance of CentroidAlifold(20) - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 519
Total TN 201737
Total FP 102
Total FP CONTRA 13
Total FP INCONS 50
Total FP COMP 39
Total FN 479
Total Scores
MCC 0.680
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.670 ± 0.063
Sensitivity 0.520
Positive Predictive Value 0.892
Nr of predictions 26

^top



2. Individual counts for CentroidAlifold(20) [ download as .csv ]

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2L94_A 0.61 0.55 0.69 11 974 5 0 5 0 9
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 11 5 3 3 7
2XKV_B 0.46 0.25 0.83 5 4554 6 0 1 5 15
2XQD_Y 0.88 0.78 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 6
2XXA_G 0.44 0.19 1.00 8 5143 3 0 0 3 34
3A2K_C 0.86 0.75 1.00 21 2905 0 0 0 0 7
3AMU_B 0.86 0.74 1.00 20 2983 1 0 0 1 7
3GX2_A 0.77 0.60 1.00 24 4347 1 0 0 1 16
3IVN_B 0.78 0.65 0.95 20 2325 1 1 0 0 11
3IZ4_A 0.58 0.39 0.88 51 70818 7 3 4 0 81
3IZF_C 0.75 0.61 0.92 33 6867 4 0 3 1 21
3JYV_7 0.81 0.66 1.00 21 2829 0 0 0 0 11
3JYX_3 0.61 0.56 0.68 15 6306 20 0 7 13 12
3JYX_4 0.39 0.27 0.56 9 12230 9 0 7 2 24
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.70 0.54 0.89 25 6993 5 1 2 2 21
3O58_2 0.78 0.76 0.81 29 7224 9 2 5 2 9
3O58_3 0.54 0.31 0.92 11 12391 1 0 1 0 24
3PDR_A 0.76 0.63 0.94 45 12832 5 0 3 2 27
3RKF_A 0.72 0.53 1.00 18 2193 0 0 0 0 16
3SD1_A 0.71 0.52 0.96 22 3893 1 0 1 0 20
4A1C_2 0.26 0.15 0.45 5 11770 8 1 5 2 28
4A1C_3 0.76 0.63 0.92 34 7103 4 0 3 1 20
4AOB_A 0.75 0.57 1.00 24 4347 1 0 0 1 18
4ENB_A 0.69 0.47 1.00 9 1266 0 0 0 0 10
4ENC_A 0.60 0.37 1.00 7 1319 0 0 0 0 12

^top



Performance of Sfold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Sfold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 494
Total TN 201619
Total FP 269
Total FP CONTRA 25
Total FP INCONS 181
Total FP COMP 63
Total FN 504
Total Scores
MCC 0.589
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.592 ± 0.087
Sensitivity 0.495
Positive Predictive Value 0.706
Nr of predictions 26

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2L94_A 0.97 0.95 1.00 19 971 0 0 0 0 1
2WRQ_Y 0.53 0.53 0.53 9 2833 13 5 3 5 8
2XKV_B 0.51 0.50 0.53 10 4541 23 0 9 14 10
2XQD_Y 0.77 0.67 0.90 18 2830 2 0 2 0 9
2XXA_G 0.36 0.31 0.43 13 5121 17 1 16 0 29
3A2K_C 0.42 0.39 0.46 11 2902 13 2 11 0 17
3AMU_B 0.70 0.59 0.84 16 2984 5 0 3 2 11
3GX2_A 0.72 0.55 0.96 22 4348 2 0 1 1 18
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZ4_A 0.52 0.42 0.65 56 70790 31 3 27 1 76
3IZF_C 0.71 0.61 0.83 33 6863 7 0 7 0 21
3JYV_7 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 2834 16 0 16 0 32
3JYX_3 0.62 0.63 0.61 17 6300 19 1 10 8 10
3JYX_4 0.35 0.30 0.42 10 12222 23 3 11 9 23
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.77 0.65 0.91 30 6988 6 1 2 3 16
3O58_2 0.74 0.74 0.74 28 7222 11 3 7 1 10
3O58_3 0.43 0.34 0.55 12 12381 17 0 10 7 23
3PDR_A 0.69 0.56 0.85 40 12833 9 0 7 2 32
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.65 0.50 0.84 21 3891 4 1 3 0 21
4A1C_2 0.16 0.15 0.17 5 11751 34 2 23 9 28
4A1C_3 0.69 0.57 0.84 31 7103 6 1 5 0 23
4AOB_A 0.50 0.40 0.63 17 4344 11 2 8 1 25
4ENB_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1264 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.51 0.26 1.00 5 1321 0 0 0 0 14

^top


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