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 RNASLOpt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

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


Overview

Metric CentroidFold RNASLOpt
MCC 0.654 > 0.591
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.707 ± 0.113 > 0.668 ± 0.115
Sensitivity 0.556 > 0.498
Positive Predictive Value 0.775 > 0.709
Total TP 337 > 302
Total TN 64155 < 64164
Total FP 116 < 141
Total FP CONTRA 12 < 16
Total FP INCONS 86 < 108
Total FP COMP 18 > 17
Total FN 269 < 304
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

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

^top





Performance of CentroidFold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for CentroidFold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 337
Total TN 64155
Total FP 116
Total FP CONTRA 12
Total FP INCONS 86
Total FP COMP 18
Total FN 269
Total Scores
MCC 0.654
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.707 ± 0.113
Sensitivity 0.556
Positive Predictive Value 0.775
Nr of predictions 30

^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
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
2LHP_A - 0.97 0.94 1.00 15 651 0 0 0 0 1
2LI4_A - 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 482 0 0 0 0 2
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 343 2 0 0 2 0
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
2LQZ_A - 0.85 0.82 0.90 9 341 1 1 0 0 2
2LWK_A - 0.92 0.92 0.92 12 483 1 0 1 0 1
3J0L_8 - 0.93 0.88 1.00 7 183 0 0 0 0 1
3J0L_2 - 0.25 0.24 0.28 8 6187 24 0 21 3 25
3J0L_g - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 465 0 0 0 0 4
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1220 5 0 5 0 17
3J0L_h - 0.77 0.65 0.90 28 6074 5 0 3 2 15
3J0L_1 - 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1215 2 0 1 1 10
3J0L_a - 0.41 0.31 0.56 5 1119 4 2 2 0 11
3J16_L 0.50 0.40 0.63 12 2756 7 0 7 0 18
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
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 247 1 0 0 1 0
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
4A1C_3 0.67 0.56 0.81 30 7103 7 1 6 0 24
4A1C_2 0.16 0.15 0.17 5 11752 29 5 19 5 28
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 RNASLOpt - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNASLOpt

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 302
Total TN 64164
Total FP 141
Total FP CONTRA 16
Total FP INCONS 108
Total FP COMP 17
Total FN 304
Total Scores
MCC 0.591
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.668 ± 0.115
Sensitivity 0.498
Positive Predictive Value 0.709
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 0.47 0.35 0.64 7 1529 4 0 4 0 13
2LDL_A - 0.90 0.82 1.00 9 342 1 0 0 1 2
2LHP_A - 0.97 0.94 1.00 15 651 0 0 0 0 1
2LI4_A - 0.93 0.88 1.00 14 482 0 0 0 0 2
2LJJ_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 343 2 0 0 2 0
2LK3_A - 0.95 0.90 1.00 9 267 0 0 0 0 1
2LKR_A - 0.68 0.62 0.75 24 6073 9 0 8 1 15
2LQZ_A - 0.85 0.82 0.90 9 341 1 1 0 0 2
2LWK_A - 0.83 0.77 0.91 10 485 1 0 1 0 3
3J0L_8 - 0.70 0.50 1.00 4 186 0 0 0 0 4
3J0L_2 - 0.39 0.36 0.43 12 6188 18 2 14 2 21
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 461 4 1 3 0 4
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1212 13 0 13 0 17
3J0L_h - 0.70 0.49 1.00 21 6084 0 0 0 0 22
3J0L_1 - 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1215 3 0 1 2 10
3J0L_a - 0.26 0.19 0.38 3 1120 5 1 4 0 13
3J16_L 0.53 0.40 0.71 12 2758 5 0 5 0 18
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 2 0 0 2 1
3TS0_U - 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 247 1 0 0 1 0
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 0.48 0.32 0.71 12 3553 5 0 5 0 25
3VJR_D - 0.96 0.92 1.00 12 618 0 0 0 0 1
4A1C_3 0.67 0.52 0.88 28 7108 4 0 4 0 26
4A1C_2 0.23 0.24 0.22 8 11744 35 8 21 6 25
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.26 0.19 0.38 8 4350 13 2 11 0 34
4ENB_A 0.76 0.58 1.00 11 1264 0 0 0 0 8
4ENC_A 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1316 1 1 0 0 10

^top


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