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 CentroidFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric CentroidFold Cylofold
MCC 0.711 > 0.648
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.727 ± 0.061 > 0.676 ± 0.066
Sensitivity 0.615 > 0.559
Positive Predictive Value 0.827 > 0.758
Total TP 910 > 827
Total TN 155205 < 155215
Total FP 239 < 305
Total FP CONTRA 18 < 36
Total FP INCONS 173 < 228
Total FP COMP 48 > 41
Total FN 570 < 653
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidFold and Cylofold. 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 CentroidFold and Cylofold).

  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 CentroidFold and Cylofold).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidFold and Cylofold. 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 CentroidFold and Cylofold).

^top





Performance of CentroidFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 910
Total TN 155205
Total FP 239
Total FP CONTRA 18
Total FP INCONS 173
Total FP COMP 48
Total FN 570
Total Scores
MCC 0.711
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.727 ± 0.061
Sensitivity 0.615
Positive Predictive Value 0.827
Nr of predictions 63

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KRL_A - 0.76 0.60 0.96 24 5126 5 0 1 4 16
2KX8_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 16 845 0 0 0 0 2
2KXM_A - 0.89 0.80 1.00 8 343 0 0 0 0 2
2KZL_A - 0.86 0.74 1.00 14 1471 0 0 0 0 5
2L1F_B 0.98 0.96 1.00 24 2121 0 0 0 0 1
2L1F_A 0.98 0.96 1.00 23 2057 0 0 0 0 1
2L2K_A - 0.94 0.89 1.00 17 844 0 0 0 0 2
2L3C_B - 0.91 0.82 1.00 14 547 0 0 0 0 3
2L3E_A - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 583 1 0 0 1 1
2L3J_B 0.94 0.88 1.00 30 2455 0 0 0 0 4
2L5Z_A - 0.86 0.75 1.00 9 316 0 0 0 0 3
2L94_A 0.92 0.90 0.95 18 971 1 0 1 0 2
2LA5_A - 0.42 0.26 0.71 5 623 2 0 2 0 14
2LC8_A 0.49 0.35 0.70 7 1530 3 1 2 0 13
2LDL_A - 0.90 0.82 1.00 9 342 1 0 0 1 2
2LDT_A - 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 454 0 0 0 0 4
2LI4_A - 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 482 0 0 0 0 2
2LK3_A - 0.95 0.90 1.00 9 267 0 0 0 0 1
2LKR_A - 0.82 0.74 0.91 29 6073 4 0 3 1 10
2LWK_A - 0.92 0.92 0.92 12 483 1 0 1 0 1
2RRC_A - 0.70 0.50 1.00 5 226 0 0 0 0 5
2XKV_B 0.51 0.50 0.53 10 4541 25 0 9 16 10
2XQD_Y 0.75 0.67 0.86 18 2829 3 0 3 0 9
2XXA_G 0.15 0.12 0.20 5 5126 20 1 19 0 37
2Y9C_V - 0.66 0.63 0.71 15 2257 8 1 5 2 9
2YIE_Z - 0.43 0.42 0.45 5 1529 6 3 3 0 7
2YIE_X - 0.67 0.58 0.78 7 1369 3 1 1 1 5
3ADB_C - 0.92 0.84 1.00 32 4154 0 0 0 0 6
3AKZ_H 0.43 0.39 0.48 11 2678 12 2 10 0 17
3AM1_B - 0.68 0.63 0.73 22 3210 8 1 7 0 13
3AMU_B 0.70 0.59 0.84 16 2984 5 0 3 2 11
3IZF_C 0.68 0.61 0.77 33 6860 10 1 9 0 21
3J0L_h - 0.77 0.65 0.90 28 6074 5 0 3 2 15
3J0L_2 - 0.25 0.24 0.28 8 6187 24 0 21 3 25
3J0L_a - 0.41 0.31 0.56 5 1119 4 2 2 0 11
3J0L_1 - 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1215 2 0 1 1 10
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1220 5 0 5 0 17
3J0L_g - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 465 0 0 0 0 4
3J16_L 0.50 0.40 0.63 12 2756 7 0 7 0 18
3NDB_M - 0.80 0.70 0.91 43 9133 5 0 4 1 18
3NKB_B - 0.57 0.50 0.65 13 1996 7 0 7 0 13
3NMU_E - 0.71 0.50 1.00 3 558 3 0 0 3 3
3O58_2 0.82 0.76 0.88 29 7227 7 1 3 3 9
3O58_3 0.38 0.29 0.50 10 12383 10 0 10 0 25
3OVB_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 584 1 0 0 1 0
3OVS_D - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 549 0 0 0 0 1
3P22_G - 0.96 0.92 1.00 11 730 1 0 0 1 1
3PDR_A 0.73 0.60 0.90 43 12832 7 0 5 2 29
3R4F_A - 0.81 0.76 0.86 19 2123 3 1 2 0 6
3R9X_C - 0.84 0.80 0.89 8 586 2 0 1 1 2
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.58 0.48 0.71 20 3888 8 1 7 0 22
3SIU_F - 0.79 0.64 1.00 7 371 0 0 0 0 4
3SN2_B 0.96 0.92 1.00 11 395 0 0 0 0 1
3TRZ_Z - 0.91 0.83 1.00 5 205 1 0 0 1 1
3TS2_V - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 271 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.57 0.46 0.71 17 3136 7 0 7 0 20
3UZL_B 0.72 0.54 0.95 20 3549 1 0 1 0 17
3VJR_D - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 618 0 0 0 0 1
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.45 0.33 0.61 14 4348 10 1 8 1 28
4ENB_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1264 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.73 0.58 0.92 11 1314 1 1 0 0 8

^top



Performance of Cylofold - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 827
Total TN 155215
Total FP 305
Total FP CONTRA 36
Total FP INCONS 228
Total FP COMP 41
Total FN 653
Total Scores
MCC 0.648
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.676 ± 0.066
Sensitivity 0.559
Positive Predictive Value 0.758
Nr of predictions 63

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2KRL_A - 0.72 0.60 0.86 24 5123 8 2 2 4 16
2KX8_A 0.94 0.89 1.00 16 845 0 0 0 0 2
2KXM_A - 0.70 0.50 1.00 5 346 0 0 0 0 5
2KZL_A - 0.72 0.53 1.00 10 1475 0 0 0 0 9
2L1F_B 0.92 0.84 1.00 21 2124 0 0 0 0 4
2L1F_A 0.91 0.83 1.00 20 2060 0 0 0 0 4
2L2K_A - 0.82 0.68 1.00 13 848 0 0 0 0 6
2L3C_B - 0.76 0.59 1.00 10 551 0 0 0 0 7
2L3E_A - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 583 1 0 0 1 1
2L3J_B 0.89 0.79 1.00 27 2458 0 0 0 0 7
2L5Z_A - 0.86 0.75 1.00 9 316 0 0 0 0 3
2L94_A 0.97 0.95 1.00 19 971 0 0 0 0 1
2LA5_A - 0.46 0.26 0.83 5 624 1 0 1 0 14
2LC8_A 0.61 0.55 0.69 11 1524 5 0 5 0 9
2LDL_A - 0.73 0.55 1.00 6 345 0 0 0 0 5
2LDT_A - 0.85 0.73 1.00 11 454 0 0 0 0 4
2LI4_A - 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 482 0 0 0 0 2
2LK3_A - 0.95 0.90 1.00 9 267 0 0 0 0 1
2LKR_A - 0.50 0.44 0.59 17 6076 12 2 10 0 22
2LWK_A - 0.83 0.77 0.91 10 485 1 0 1 0 3
2RRC_A - 0.70 0.50 1.00 5 226 0 0 0 0 5
2XKV_B 0.38 0.40 0.36 8 4538 23 7 7 9 12
2XQD_Y 0.81 0.78 0.84 21 2825 4 4 0 0 6
2XXA_G 0.10 0.10 0.11 4 5115 32 1 31 0 38
2Y9C_V - 0.59 0.54 0.65 13 2258 8 1 6 1 11
2YIE_Z - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1529 11 3 8 0 12
2YIE_X - 0.30 0.33 0.29 4 1364 10 2 8 0 8
3ADB_C - 0.78 0.71 0.87 27 4155 4 0 4 0 11
3AKZ_H 0.66 0.57 0.76 16 2680 6 0 5 1 12
3AM1_B - 0.76 0.63 0.92 22 3216 2 0 2 0 13
3AMU_B 0.67 0.59 0.76 16 2982 7 0 5 2 11
3IZF_C 0.68 0.56 0.83 30 6867 6 0 6 0 24
3J0L_h - 0.48 0.37 0.62 16 6079 10 0 10 0 27
3J0L_2 - 0.39 0.36 0.43 12 6188 18 2 14 2 21
3J0L_a - 0.22 0.19 0.27 3 1117 8 1 7 0 13
3J0L_1 - 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1215 2 0 1 1 10
3J0L_7 - 0.30 0.29 0.33 5 1210 10 0 10 0 12
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 461 4 1 3 0 4
3J16_L 0.75 0.57 1.00 17 2758 0 0 0 0 13
3NDB_M - 0.58 0.48 0.71 29 9139 13 1 11 1 32
3NKB_B - 0.40 0.31 0.53 8 2001 7 0 7 0 18
3NMU_E - 0.20 0.17 0.25 1 557 6 1 2 3 5
3O58_2 0.80 0.68 0.93 26 7232 3 0 2 1 12
3O58_3 0.36 0.34 0.38 12 12371 29 5 15 9 23
3OVB_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 584 1 0 0 1 0
3OVS_D - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 549 0 0 0 0 1
3P22_G - 0.96 0.92 1.00 11 730 0 0 0 0 1
3PDR_A 0.72 0.54 0.95 39 12839 4 0 2 2 33
3R4F_A - 0.96 0.92 1.00 23 2122 0 0 0 0 2
3R9X_C - 0.84 0.80 0.89 8 586 2 0 1 1 2
3RKF_A 0.76 0.59 1.00 20 2191 0 0 0 0 14
3SD1_A 0.62 0.50 0.78 21 3889 6 0 6 0 21
3SIU_F - 0.73 0.55 1.00 6 372 0 0 0 0 5
3SN2_B 0.64 0.42 1.00 5 401 0 0 0 0 7
3TRZ_Z - 0.91 0.83 1.00 5 205 1 0 0 1 1
3TS2_V - 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 271 0 0 0 0 0
3U4M_B - 0.38 0.32 0.46 12 3134 14 0 14 0 25
3UZL_B 0.45 0.38 0.54 14 3544 12 1 11 0 23
3VJR_D - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 618 0 0 0 0 1
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.35 0.26 0.48 11 4348 13 1 11 1 31
4ENB_A 0.89 0.79 1.00 15 1260 0 0 0 0 4
4ENC_A 0.86 0.79 0.94 15 1310 1 1 0 0 4

^top


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