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 Cylofold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

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

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


Overview

Metric Cylofold RNAwolf
MCC 0.583 > 0.511
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.624 ± 0.107 > 0.538 ± 0.124
Sensitivity 0.498 > 0.474
Positive Predictive Value 0.692 > 0.563
Total TP 310 > 295
Total TN 56301 > 56225
Total FP 145 < 251
Total FP CONTRA 14 < 21
Total FP INCONS 124 < 208
Total FP COMP 7 < 22
Total FN 313 < 328
P-value 3.56938820447e-08

^top




Performance plots


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

  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 Cylofold and RNAwolf).

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

^top





Performance of Cylofold - scored higher in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for Cylofold

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 310
Total TN 56301
Total FP 145
Total FP CONTRA 14
Total FP INCONS 124
Total FP COMP 7
Total FN 313
Total Scores
MCC 0.583
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.624 ± 0.107
Sensitivity 0.498
Positive Predictive Value 0.692
Nr of predictions 30

^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
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
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
3AMU_B 0.67 0.59 0.76 16 2982 7 0 5 2 11
3J0L_7 - 0.30 0.29 0.33 5 1210 10 0 10 0 12
3J0L_1 - 0.65 0.47 0.90 9 1215 2 0 1 1 10
3J0L_g - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 461 4 1 3 0 4
3J0L_h - 0.48 0.37 0.62 16 6079 10 0 10 0 27
3J0L_a - 0.22 0.19 0.27 3 1117 8 1 7 0 13
3J0L_2 - 0.39 0.36 0.43 12 6188 18 2 14 2 21
3J16_L 0.75 0.57 1.00 17 2758 0 0 0 0 13
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



Performance of RNAwolf - scored lower in this pairwise comparison

1. Total counts & total scores for RNAwolf

Total Base Pair Counts
Total TP 295
Total TN 56225
Total FP 251
Total FP CONTRA 21
Total FP INCONS 208
Total FP COMP 22
Total FN 328
Total Scores
MCC 0.511
Average MCC ± 95% Confidence Intervals 0.538 ± 0.124
Sensitivity 0.474
Positive Predictive Value 0.563
Nr of predictions 30

^top



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

RNA Chain Rfam family MCC SENS PPV TP TN FP FP CONTRA FP INCONS FP COMP FN
2LC8_A 0.52 0.50 0.56 10 1522 8 0 8 0 10
2LDL_A - 0.74 0.64 0.88 7 343 1 0 1 0 4
2LDT_A - 0.86 0.80 0.92 12 452 1 0 1 0 3
2LI4_A - 0.97 0.94 1.00 15 481 0 0 0 0 1
2LK3_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 266 0 0 0 0 0
2LKR_A - 0.81 0.74 0.88 29 6072 8 0 4 4 10
2LWK_A - 0.37 0.38 0.38 5 483 9 0 8 1 8
2YIE_Z - 0.43 0.42 0.45 5 1529 9 1 5 3 7
2YIE_X - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1364 15 4 10 1 12
3AMU_B 0.68 0.63 0.74 17 2980 9 0 6 3 10
3J0L_7 - -0.01 0.00 0.00 0 1214 11 0 11 0 17
3J0L_1 - 0.68 0.63 0.75 12 1209 5 0 4 1 7
3J0L_g - 0.16 0.25 0.11 1 456 8 6 2 0 3
3J0L_h - 0.33 0.30 0.37 13 6070 24 0 22 2 30
3J0L_a - 0.18 0.19 0.20 3 1113 12 1 11 0 13
3J0L_2 - 0.11 0.12 0.11 4 6181 34 5 26 3 29
3J16_L 0.45 0.40 0.52 12 2752 11 0 11 0 18
3RKF_A 0.72 0.62 0.84 21 2186 4 0 4 0 13
3SD1_A 0.46 0.43 0.50 18 3880 18 0 18 0 24
3SIU_F - 0.73 0.55 1.00 6 372 0 0 0 0 5
3SN2_B 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 394 0 0 0 0 0
3TRZ_Z - 0.91 0.83 1.00 5 205 0 0 0 0 1
3TS2_V - -0.02 0.00 0.00 0 270 7 0 6 1 5
3U4M_B - 0.44 0.38 0.52 14 3133 13 0 13 0 23
3UZL_B 0.72 0.59 0.88 22 3545 4 1 2 1 15
3VJR_D - 1.00 1.00 1.00 13 617 1 0 0 1 0
4A4U_A - 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 222 0 0 0 0 0
4AOB_A 0.23 0.19 0.30 8 4344 20 1 18 1 34
4ENB_A 0.35 0.32 0.40 6 1260 9 1 8 0 13
4ENC_A 0.34 0.32 0.38 6 1310 10 1 9 0 13

^top


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