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 Murlet(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric CentroidFold Murlet(20)
MCC 0.597 > 0.581
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.605 ± 0.088 > 0.583 ± 0.069
Sensitivity 0.506 > 0.425
Positive Predictive Value 0.707 < 0.798
Total TP 505 > 424
Total TN 201605 < 201788
Total FP 255 > 138
Total FP CONTRA 37 > 13
Total FP INCONS 172 > 94
Total FP COMP 46 > 31
Total FN 493 < 574
P-value 6.18973841657e-07

^top




Performance plots


  1. Comparison of performance of CentroidFold and Murlet(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 CentroidFold and Murlet(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 CentroidFold and Murlet(20)).

  3. Comparison of average Matthews Correlation Coefficients (MCCs) for CentroidFold and Murlet(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 CentroidFold and Murlet(20)).

^top





Performance of CentroidFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 505
Total TN 201605
Total FP 255
Total FP CONTRA 37
Total FP INCONS 172
Total FP COMP 46
Total FN 493
Total Scores
MCC 0.597
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.605 ± 0.088
Sensitivity 0.506
Positive Predictive Value 0.707
Nr of predictions 26

^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
2L94_A 0.92 0.90 0.95 18 971 1 0 1 0 2
2WRQ_Y 0.57 0.59 0.56 10 2832 12 5 3 4 7
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
3A2K_C 0.44 0.43 0.46 12 2900 14 2 12 0 16
3AMU_B 0.70 0.59 0.84 16 2984 5 0 3 2 11
3GX2_A 0.79 0.63 1.00 25 4346 1 0 0 1 15
3IVN_B 0.78 0.61 1.00 19 2327 0 0 0 0 12
3IZ4_A 0.55 0.45 0.68 59 70789 33 4 24 5 73
3IZF_C 0.68 0.61 0.77 33 6860 10 1 9 0 21
3JYV_7 0.77 0.59 1.00 19 2831 0 0 0 0 13
3JYX_3 0.29 0.30 0.30 8 6301 20 8 11 1 19
3JYX_4 0.23 0.21 0.25 7 12218 25 5 16 4 26
3LA5_A 0.78 0.62 1.00 21 2464 0 0 0 0 13
3NPB_A 0.77 0.70 0.86 32 6984 7 1 4 2 14
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
3PDR_A 0.73 0.60 0.90 43 12832 7 0 5 2 29
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
4A1C_2 0.16 0.15 0.17 5 11752 29 5 19 5 28
4A1C_3 0.67 0.56 0.81 30 7103 7 1 6 0 24
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 Murlet(20) - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 424
Total TN 201788
Total FP 138
Total FP CONTRA 13
Total FP INCONS 94
Total FP COMP 31
Total FN 574
Total Scores
MCC 0.581
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.583 ± 0.069
Sensitivity 0.425
Positive Predictive Value 0.798
Nr of predictions 26

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2L94_A 0.53 0.50 0.59 10 973 7 0 7 0 10
2WRQ_Y 0.41 0.41 0.41 7 2833 12 6 4 2 10
2XKV_B 0.45 0.20 1.00 4 4556 3 0 0 3 16
2XQD_Y 0.80 0.70 0.90 19 2829 2 0 2 0 8
2XXA_G 0.41 0.17 1.00 7 5144 0 0 0 0 35
3A2K_C 0.78 0.68 0.90 19 2905 2 0 2 0 9
3AMU_B 0.77 0.67 0.90 18 2983 3 0 2 1 9
3GX2_A 0.61 0.38 1.00 15 4356 1 0 0 1 25
3IVN_B 0.69 0.48 1.00 15 2331 0 0 0 0 16
3IZ4_A 0.40 0.24 0.65 32 70827 21 1 16 4 100
3IZF_C 0.71 0.56 0.91 30 6870 4 0 3 1 24
3JYV_7 0.67 0.53 0.85 17 2830 3 0 3 0 15
3JYX_3 0.60 0.52 0.70 14 6308 11 0 6 5 13
3JYX_4 0.36 0.27 0.47 9 12227 15 0 10 5 24
3LA5_A 0.68 0.47 1.00 16 2469 0 0 0 0 18
3NPB_A 0.55 0.35 0.89 16 7003 2 1 1 0 30
3O58_2 0.89 0.82 0.97 31 7228 2 0 1 1 7
3O58_3 0.33 0.23 0.47 8 12386 12 2 7 3 27
3PDR_A 0.70 0.53 0.93 38 12839 3 0 3 0 34
3RKF_A 0.68 0.47 1.00 16 2195 0 0 0 0 18
3SD1_A 0.68 0.57 0.83 24 3887 5 1 4 0 18
4A1C_2 0.17 0.15 0.20 5 11756 24 2 18 4 28
4A1C_3 0.59 0.41 0.85 22 7114 4 0 4 0 32
4AOB_A 0.72 0.55 0.96 23 4347 2 0 1 1 19
4ENB_A 0.46 0.21 1.00 4 1271 0 0 0 0 15
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.